Papo New for 2017

[Shonisaurus]

I'm glad Sim pointed it out because I thought I was the only one that thought the head on Acrocanthosaurus looked ridiculously over sized. It just looks silly...like it is a Schiech toy or something. 

Chris

Sincerely with all my respect for the Schleich company regardless of whether they have made a kentrosaurus this decent year, they would like their theropods to look like Papo's. Papo will have its flaws but in the detail of its figures and its hyperrealism few companies can be compared.

Schleich is a company whose models in particular their dinosaurs are little finished and are of a rather rough texture that does not happen with Papo, apart from this Papo has made paleontologically scientific figures (within what we can call toy market) as the styracosaurus , diplodocus, tupuxuara or carnotaurus.

Papo dinosaurus figures are with an abyssal difference superior to Schleich and in particular its theropods. Some of their figures can be based on films but they are very accessible toys not only for children but also for us collectors.

[Silvanusaurus]

I was wondering what it was about the Acrocanthosaurus that has stopped me liking it all that much, I think I realise now that it's the proportions of the head/body. Granted, the figure seems to be at odd angles in those images though.

[Ezikot]

So Papo is being accurate this time around! Great! -Scroll down a bit when you click the link below to see what I mean-

http://tieba.baidu.com/p/4975032959

No they aren't. Following the skeleton isn't always going to be accurate, it's just following the skeleton. The Ceratosaurus is shrink-wrapped, especially the skull.

And the Acrocanthosaurus isn't even accurate to the skeleton.

As I wrote earlier, The Ceratosaurus head doesn't seem so shrink-wrapped to me. At least, i cannot see the antorbital fenestra. Please correct me if i'm wrong.

[Sim]

But if the new Dimetrodon reconstruction taught us anything, it's that mounted skeletons in museums aren't always accurate to life.

Mounted skeletons in museums definitely aren't always accurate to life.  A prominent example known before the new Dimetrodon reconstruction is Plateosaurus being forced into quadrupedal postures by altering its skeleton (more on that here: link).  Another is how the first complete skeletons of Iguanodon showed their tail was more or less straight complete with ossified tendons, but despite this their tail was broken to create the kangaroo posture Iguanodon.

What surprised me is that it isn't just that mounted Acrocanthosaurus skeleton that's bending its elbow at a right angle.  It also occurs in Scott Hartman's skeletal and Greg Paul's skeletal in his 2010 book: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=wdKBfB2k9asC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q=acrocanthosaurus&f=false  And in that image from a 2016 paper.  Yet the info about Acrocanthosaurus being unable to bend its elbow at a right angle is from 2005 and is on the Acrocanthosaurus Wikipedia page too.  So it seems really weird that such a mistake would be made in so many places, not to mention places where I'd expect it wouldn't happen.

[spinosaurus1]

As I wrote earlier, The Ceratosaurus head doesn't seem so shrink-wrapped to me. At least, i cannot see the antorbital fenestra. Please correct me if i'm wrong.

i have to agree with this. i'm not seeing any shrinkwrapping that would be out of the whelm of plausibility for a live animal to have. the defined areas look more like overlaying layer of keratin growths that fallows the the contours of the skull rather then actual sunken skin.

[tanystropheus]

I'm glad Sim pointed it out because I thought I was the only one that thought the head on Acrocanthosaurus looked ridiculously over sized. It just looks silly...like it is a Schiech toy or something. 

Chris

I wonder if that could be attributed to the angle. For the sake of comparison, we seem to have less circulating photos of the Acro than the Cerato or Cryo.

The Papo Baryonyx also had the same problem with the head sculpt; in some photos, depending on the angle, the head seemed insanely over sized. However, that wasn't actually the case.

[terrorchicken]

you're all complaining about Paoo dinos having exaggerated proportions NOW?   

[The Atroxious]

you're all complaining about Paoo dinos having exaggerated proportions NOW?   

This.

When the photos were first released I was shot down for saying the Acro looked far too bulky given its proportions. Now suddenly other people are noticing the wonky proportions.

[Shadowknight1]

To me, it doesn't look any more oversized than the CollectA one people were praising last year.

[joossa]

I'm glad Sim pointed it out because I thought I was the only one that thought the head on Acrocanthosaurus looked ridiculously over sized. It just looks silly...like it is a Schiech toy or something. 

Chris

Yup, some of these new Papos are like Schiech and old Papo's progeny. They've lost some of the realism and traded it for cartoony looks. I prefer my Rebor Arco and Certato than the new Papos.

[Reptilia]

The Papo Baryonyx also had the same problem with the head sculpt; in some photos, depending on the angle, the head seemed insanely over sized. However, that wasn't actually the case.

Yes, the first picture of the Acrocanthosaurus from the London Toy Fair gave me the same impression. However in the stock photo the head doesn't look oversized at all, so it is probably just a matter of wrong perspective.

[stargatedalek]

As I wrote earlier, The Ceratosaurus head doesn't seem so shrink-wrapped to me. At least, i cannot see the antorbital fenestra. Please correct me if i'm wrong.

i have to agree with this. i'm not seeing any shrinkwrapping that would be out of the whelm of plausibility for a live animal to have. the defined areas look more like overlaying layer of keratin growths that fallows the the contours of the skull rather then actual sunken skin.

Even ignoring the extremely unlikely growths happening to line up with the placement of the bones, look at the shading, those sections aren't just highlighted they are still indented, as is the back of the skull.

[spinosaurus1]

Even ignoring the extremely unlikely growths happening to line up with the placement of the bones, look at the shading, those sections aren't just highlighted they are still indented, as is the back of the skull.

it's an incredibly minute, almost minuscule indention that doesn't look at all to be the extent of being implausibly shrinkwrapped. one only needs to look at birds such as Egyptian vultures, or ostriches as being examples. it looks more like a mere naturally occuring subcutaneous landmark rather then legit improbable shrinkwrapping. though it's just my thought on how it's look as i doubt papo has thought so thoroughly on this matter. sed judgment can be made once i have the figure in hand

[terrorchicken]

They've lost some of the realism and traded it for cartoony looks.

but they've always looked cartoony. At least I always thought so. Realism... maybe the skin textures...those do tend to be pretty detailed.

When the photos were first released I was shot down for saying the Acro looked far too bulky given its proportions. Now suddenly other people are noticing the wonky proportions.

that and Ive always felt Papo dinos had weird exaggerated proportions: the long necked styraco, that running t-rex with the weird skinny body, those strange 3 humps on the parasaurolophus. They've always looked like a cross bw JP dinos and Schleich. So I actually find these 3 new theropods an improvement. And the polacanthus is ok except I hate that helmet thing, he looks like that one guy from Fat Albert who wears the hat over his face with the cut out eye holes.

[Neosodon]

Looks like I may be passing on papo this year. The Ceratosaurus was the one dinosaur that looked good in the promo and now I'm not so sure. The head and body are to bulky giving it a fat T Rex look. The arms are a little over sized while the legs look a little to small. On a positive note though the pose and color looks nice which is a step in the right direction.

[tanystropheus]

Looks like I may be passing on papo this year. The Ceratosaurus was the one dinosaur that looked good in the promo and now I'm not so sure. The head and body are to bulky giving it a fat T Rex look. The arms are a little over sized while the legs look a little to small. On a positive note though the pose and color looks nice which is a step in the right direction.

I think it looks even better now that I've seen multiple pics of it. It has a naturalistic (and as noted before, chameleon) look to it. It is also, perhaps, the best Cerato interpretation ever made. It could be juvenile with higher fat ratio or even an individual variation (statistical outlier, if we assume an apologetic stance)...or maybe it really does want to emulate a chameleon and just lurch onto a branch on a tree  Regardless, it is a piece of art and a welcome addition to the Papo prehistoric line.

[Silvanusaurus]

Based on the images so far, I honestly think the Ceratosaurus could end up being my favourite Papo figure. Out of all their theropods it seems to me to be the least egregiously proportioned, and the relative simplicity of it's design and pose make it all the more attractive to me, it's waaaaaaaaay nicer than the weirdo Allosaurus or running rex.

[Shonisaurus]

I sincerely like the keratosaurus of Rebor looks superior. Their colors are more realistic and appear more detailed. I like most the acrocanthosaurus Papo on the one of Rebor its image is better detailed and the figure looks better. I observe the kestrel Papo with all my respect as a figure too childish to be a figure of Papo, apart from that the figure is unfortunately very small.

What I observed in the photos of the London fair that both the ceratosaurus and the acrocanthosaurus are paticortos, I do not know if that is one of the things of Papo in this year referring to the dinosaurs that baffles me. I would rather have more detailed pictures of these figures on the ground and not so dark for more opinion. Paradoxically the cryolophosaurus being the figure in theory of fiction and the least convincing from the scientific point of view is for me by far a figure in which I value in spite of its tripod aspect (detail that I censure) that does not have the short legs like the Two other figures mentioned.

But for me despite all the acrocanthosaurus is for me the star figure of this year Papo is undoubtedly a very detailed figure but not displayed well on the ground. His photos as I said look very dark, although I see that this figure is the most realistic of the three theropods by far.

[tanystropheus]

The REBOR Cerato is way too textured (someone went overboard with the scales, although the fungal effect is kind of cool). It's great concept design, but is more befitting of a dragon (or something to that effect).

[Shonisaurus]

I'm glad Sim pointed it out because I thought I was the only one that thought the head on Acrocanthosaurus looked ridiculously over sized. It just looks silly...like it is a Schiech toy or something. 

Chris

Yup, some of these new Papos are like Schiech and old Papo's progeny. They've lost some of the realism and traded it for cartoony looks. I prefer my Rebor Arco and Certato than the new Papos.

Sincerely you can find many scientific flaws to Papo figures. But to compare them with Schleich seems to me exaggerated. They would like the Schleich dinosaurs to be at the same height as their Papo counterparts. They have no point of comparison.

That is the ceratosaurus of Papo I see it very small and very childish and a little paticorto as I have pointed, but from there to compare said figure to put a metaphorical example at the height of Schleich is for me an unreal comparison.

I guess they do not let reveal many photos of the dinosaurs of both Papo and Collecta and those that exist are too dark is due to the fear of commercial piracy and plagiarism related to imitators of dinosaur companies.