Worst dinosaur toy

[need4swede]

We owe the creators of these early dinosaurs our respect and gratitude.

I think this entire thread has done just that. If it weren't for discussions like these, some of us would never have even seen or heard of these figures before - and would probably never afford them the light of day outside of the realm of critique. By having these discussions, we are somewhat immortalizing the work of these artists, even if it is done so unintentionally by the makers themselves. If Tommy Wiseau's "The Room" was just a mediocre film, nobody would have heard of it. It is now considered a somewhat cult-classic and will forever survive the winters of cinema simply due to how it was immortalized by the critiquing public. The same goes for these figures; long may they live!

[Gwangi]

We owe the creators of these early dinosaurs our respect and gratitude.

I think this entire thread has done just that. If it weren't for discussions like these, some of us would never have even seen or heard of these figures before - and would probably never afford them the light of day outside of the realm of critique. By having these discussions, we are somewhat immortalizing the work of these artists, even if it is done so unintentionally by the makers themselves. If Tommy Wiseau's "The Room" was just a mediocre film, nobody would have heard of it. It is now considered a somewhat cult-classic and will forever survive the winters of cinema simply due to how it was immortalized by the critiquing public. The same goes for these figures; long may they live!

I might agree with that for some of the toys featured here, but not with Marx specifically. If we're using movies as analogies for dinosaur toys then Marx would be 1925's The Lost World or 1933's King Kong.

[need4swede]

We owe the creators of these early dinosaurs our respect and gratitude.

I think this entire thread has done just that. If it weren't for discussions like these, some of us would never have even seen or heard of these figures before - and would probably never afford them the light of day outside of the realm of critique. By having these discussions, we are somewhat immortalizing the work of these artists, even if it is done so unintentionally by the makers themselves. If Tommy Wiseau's "The Room" was just a mediocre film, nobody would have heard of it. It is now considered a somewhat cult-classic and will forever survive the winters of cinema simply due to how it was immortalized by the critiquing public. The same goes for these figures; long may they live!

I might agree with that for some of the toys featured here, but not with Marx specifically. If we're using movies as analogies for dinosaur toys then Marx would be 1925's The Lost World or 1933's King Kong.

I think it still applies - I certainly had never heard of them before they were brought up in this thread, which sort of proves my point. One can poke fun at the design of them and still appreciate the artistic contributions of the creators. I certainly don't think less of them, because historical context certainly matters. One isn't discrediting the work of the filmmakers by pointing out how ridiculous a man in a gorilla costume looks, because obviously you're using contemporary standards to judge it. The same goes for the original Godzilla and all the rest of those ol' timers. It's a great way to humanize the artistic progress and fundamentally appreciate all the work that goes into making a good figure or a good movie effect, and so on.

I suppose the point I am trying to make here is this - the scope of the critique certainly matters. If you're using the work of pioneers to juxtapose contemporary art, then by all means do it - after all, the artists themselves certainly do when improving their craft. If you're poking fun at the man in the gorilla costume and how ridiculous it looks - then by all means, do it! If nothing else it humanizes the artistic expression of the effect itself and allows it find a new home within the realm of contemporary art, where it otherwise might have fallen by the wayside in most discussions outside of those nourished by connoisseurs and serious collectors - of which I am neither, and most aren't.

Now, that being said, if you're genuinely thrashing the work of the artists - that's a different matter entirely! But I don't see that being the case here. This is just light hearted fun, the same way making fun of those giant mobile phones of the 80's isn't making fun of the pioneers of mobile telecommunication. The day we stop making fun of them is the day they die out of public consciousness and get lost to the pages of museums and history books.

[Gwangi]

We owe the creators of these early dinosaurs our respect and gratitude.

I think this entire thread has done just that. If it weren't for discussions like these, some of us would never have even seen or heard of these figures before - and would probably never afford them the light of day outside of the realm of critique. By having these discussions, we are somewhat immortalizing the work of these artists, even if it is done so unintentionally by the makers themselves. If Tommy Wiseau's "The Room" was just a mediocre film, nobody would have heard of it. It is now considered a somewhat cult-classic and will forever survive the winters of cinema simply due to how it was immortalized by the critiquing public. The same goes for these figures; long may they live!

I might agree with that for some of the toys featured here, but not with Marx specifically. If we're using movies as analogies for dinosaur toys then Marx would be 1925's The Lost World or 1933's King Kong.

I think it still applies - I certainly had never heard of them before they were brought up in this thread, which sort of proves my point. One can poke fun at the design of them and still appreciate the artistic contributions of the creators. I certainly don't think less of them, because historical context certainly matters. One isn't discrediting the work of the filmmakers by pointing out how ridiculous a man in a gorilla costume looks, because obviously you're using contemporary standards to judge it. The same goes for the original Godzilla and all the rest of those ol' timers. It's a great way to humanize the artistic progress and fundamentally appreciate all the work that goes into making a good figure or a good movie effect, and so on.

I suppose the point I am trying to make here is this - the scope of the critique certainly matters. If you're using the work of pioneers to juxtapose contemporary art, then by all means do it - after all, the artists themselves certainly do when improving their craft. If you're poking fun at the man in the gorilla costume and how ridiculous it looks - then by all means, do it! If nothing else it humanizes the artistic expression of the effect itself and allows it find a new home within the realm of contemporary art, where it otherwise might have fallen by the wayside in most discussions outside of those nourished by connoisseurs and serious collectors - of which I am neither, and most aren't.

Now, that being said, if you're genuinely thrashing the work of the artists - that's a different matter entirely! But I don't see that being the case here. This is just light hearted fun, the same way making fun of those giant mobile phones of the 80's isn't making fun of the pioneers of mobile telecommunication. The day we stop making fun of them is the day they die out of public consciousness and get lost to the pages of museums and history books.

No, I don't think it applies, and I think you've completely missed my point. There's a lot of valid and thoughtful commentary in your post, a lot of it that I agree with, but none of it addresses my main and only point that I must now reiterate. I'm not talking about bad dinosaur toys in general, I'm talking about the Marx toys. The Marx toys are not comparable to a movie like The Room which is a bad movie, was bad when it was released, and will forever be bad. The Marx toys are more akin to the old B&W movies that yes, are often criticized or taken for granted in modern times, but were at one time the pinnacle of film and pioneers in the film industry. Make sense?

King Kong (1933) in its time was a groundbreaking achievement in film making and special effects. It doesn't matter how well it holds up today, or if you've never seen or heard of it. And yes, it is good for a few laughs at its expense. The Marx toys were a groundbreaking achievement in the production of dinosaur toys. It doesn't matter if they hold up or if you've never heard of them. And yes, they're good for a few laughs at their expense. They are not comparable to The Room and if you want dinosaur toys to compare to that film there is abundant fodder to be had. Schleich releases toys that are so bad they're good on a regular basis.

Also, King Kong was not a man in a costume in the 1933 film, he was primarily stop motion. Far ahead of his time and far more convincing than Godzilla which was indeed, a man in a costume.

[Fembrogon]

I'm in agreement with Gwangi; while topics like these are great for remembering and appreciating the "odd" corners of the dino market, the Marx toys aren't appropriate here because they aren't truly BAD figures the way many of these other toys are; at worst, they're just obviously outdated. Gwangi mentioned how these toys were modeled after the paleoart of the time; do we call Charles R. Knight's first, lizardlike T. rex painting "bad", or do we admire its craftmanship and iconography while still acknowledging its place in former scientific understanding? Sure, some of the Marx and MPC toys look a little goofy or rough around the edges, but some of them are also quite beautiful for being 60-year-old kids' toys. We can laugh at how weird and hideous some dinosaur toys are or were, but the Marx figures don't deserve that type of attention.

[tinyvinyldinos]

Uh oh, I got myself in trouble.

I sincerely apologize to the Marx figures! I was comparing them to toys from the 90's because that's when I thought they were made. Knowing that they're some of the first dinosaur toys gives me a different perspective on them.

My only defense is that the Marx figures were old enough to drink before I was born, which is a very shoddy defense. I should've known better.

(And if anyone here sincerely wanted me to give them away they probably shouldn't have told me what a piece of history they are. ;p )

[Fembrogon]

Hey, no problem! I grew up playing with Marx knockoffs and other vintage-style dino toys, but it wasn't until the last couple of years that I became aware of their history and identity. Dinosaur collecting is almost like fossil hunting: do a little digging and you find something "new"!

...And it just occurred to me that I could have nominated something recently. I was visiting Target and saw that the regular Battat/Terra bookend appeared to be getting replaced by Animal Planet brand toys - cheap, wannabe-Hasbro brand toys. Generally they were just mediocre, but then I saw one of the sets had a knockoff JP3 male raptor and oh, dear - what did they do to its face?!
It looked pretty much like this:



I won't claim this is the worst of the worst, but still... Yikes. (also what's with that little devil dino?!?)

[Gwangi]

Uh oh, I got myself in trouble.

I sincerely apologize to the Marx figures! I was comparing them to toys from the 90's because that's when I thought they were made. Knowing that they're some of the first dinosaur toys gives me a different perspective on them.

My only defense is that the Marx figures were old enough to drink before I was born, which is a very shoddy defense. I should've known better.

(And if anyone here sincerely wanted me to give them away they probably shouldn't have told me what a piece of history they are. ;p )

No worries, glad you're being a good sport about it. I'm in the same boat, the Marx figures were already old when I was born, but my dad had a collection of them from his childhood and I remember playing with those. Recently I've been collecting and reviewing them for the Dinosaur Toy Blog and have become quite enamored with them, and a bit defensive of them. Marx made a lot of toys, not just dinosaurs, and collecting old Marx toys is a hobby in its own right. The dinosaurs were first produced in 1955 and they were the very first mass produced dinosaur toys. The start of it all, ground zero. There are some older dinosaur collectables, from the 1940's and made of metal, but not actual toys.

Now those toys, @Fembrogon, definitely qualify as bad. Not the worst, but unquestionable bad.

[need4swede]

The Marx toys are not comparable to a movie like The Room which is a bad movie, was bad when it was released, and will forever be bad. The Marx toys are more akin to the old B&W movies that yes, are often criticized or taken for granted in modern times, but were at one time the pinnacle of film and pioneers in the film industry. Make sense?

King Kong (1933) in its time was a groundbreaking achievement in film making and special effects. It doesn't matter how well it holds up today, or if you've never seen or heard of it. And yes, it is good for a few laughs at its expense. The Marx toys were a groundbreaking achievement in the production of dinosaur toys. It doesn't matter if they hold up or if you've never heard of them. And yes, they're good for a few laughs at their expense. They are not comparable to The Room and if you want dinosaur toys to compare to that film there is abundant fodder to be had. Schleich releases toys that are so bad they're good on a regular basis.

@Gwangi

Allow me to pose your point back to you and you let me know if I got it somewhat right.

You're essentially making a case for the difference between something that is 'bad', however one wishes to define that, and something that is dated, obsolete, or a product of its time. Just because something seems rudimentary today, doesn't mean it was poorly designed; using my own mobile phone analogy, it would be comparable to the very first iPhone, which was groundbreaking for its time - even if it couldn't hold a candle to even the cheap phones of today. This, in turn, doesn't make it a bad product, especially if you compare it to the other smartphones that were available at the time...which would be none, if we're using the same ideas we use today to define what a smartphone actually is. To use your own words, it was "the start of it all, ground zero."

If I got this right, that's essentially your argument - the Marx toys were like the iPhone of dinosaur toys. They're laughably rudimentary by today's standards, and we can joke about that just as much as we joke about not even having copy/paste on the original Apple phone and the horrible cellular reception they had, but they are far from being 'bad' products - least of all the 'worst' of any set of products, which is the topic of discussion within this thread.

By that merit, I completely agree with you that they don't really belong in this thread. If the thread was more concerned with the artistic progress of the craft, and one is free to critique that all they want, this would be a different story. I believe that's were I got hung up, but upon further reading I can see that's not really what's being discussed here. I retract my statement and I agree with you 100%. I appreciate the discussion!

[Fembrogon]

If we want to get on the case of older toys, one figure I've long disliked is this T. rex from the HG Toys Dinosaur Warriors line circa 1980s. From what I've seen of the line, a lot of the figures have this quaint, blobby-round aesthetic to them - which can have its charm, I suppose. Even as a kid, though, this rex just looked ugly to me. I get bad knockoff-Barney-type vibes from it.



Again, this might not be a true "worst" contender; but this was released in the same time frame as the Invicta, Carnegie, and Dino-Riders lines, so there's certainly more to compare with.

[Gwangi]

The Marx toys are not comparable to a movie like The Room which is a bad movie, was bad when it was released, and will forever be bad. The Marx toys are more akin to the old B&W movies that yes, are often criticized or taken for granted in modern times, but were at one time the pinnacle of film and pioneers in the film industry. Make sense?

King Kong (1933) in its time was a groundbreaking achievement in film making and special effects. It doesn't matter how well it holds up today, or if you've never seen or heard of it. And yes, it is good for a few laughs at its expense. The Marx toys were a groundbreaking achievement in the production of dinosaur toys. It doesn't matter if they hold up or if you've never heard of them. And yes, they're good for a few laughs at their expense. They are not comparable to The Room and if you want dinosaur toys to compare to that film there is abundant fodder to be had. Schleich releases toys that are so bad they're good on a regular basis.

@Gwangi

Allow me to pose your point back to you and you let me know if I got it somewhat right.

You're essentially making a case for the difference between something that is 'bad', however one wishes to define that, and something that is dated, obsolete, or a product of its time. Just because something seems rudimentary today, doesn't mean it was poorly designed; using my own mobile phone analogy, it would be comparable to the very first iPhone, which was groundbreaking for its time - even if it couldn't hold a candle to even the cheap phones of today. This, in turn, doesn't make it a bad product, especially if you compare it to the other smartphones that were available at the time...which would be none, if we're using the same ideas we use today to define what a smartphone actually is. To use your own words, it was "the start of it all, ground zero."

If I got this right, that's essentially your argument - the Marx toys were like the iPhone of dinosaur toys. They're laughably rudimentary by today's standards, and we can joke about that just as much as we joke about not even having copy/paste on the original Apple phone and the horrible cellular reception they had, but they are far from being 'bad' products - least of all the 'worst' of any set of products, which is the topic of discussion within this thread.

By that merit, I completely agree with you that they don't really belong in this thread. If the thread was more concerned with the artistic progress of the craft, and one is free to critique that all they want, this would be a different story. I believe that's were I got hung up, but upon further reading I can see that's not really what's being discussed here. I retract my statement and I agree with you 100%. I appreciate the discussion!

Yeah, you're getting it now. Although unlike the first iPhone I do think the Marx dinosaurs retain some aesthetic appeal, but that's subjective.

[need4swede]

Yeah, you're getting it now. Although unlike the first iPhone I do think the Marx dinosaurs retain some aesthetic appeal, but that's subjective.

The subjective nature of the discussion is where my point got lost in the weeds, I think, which warrants a correction on my part. This thread isn't "Toys I don't think look appealing to me," or anything of that nature. Judging by the title, and more importantly by how individuals have formulated their discussions, the topic is explicitly about dinosaur toys that are not only considered to be 'bad' toys in their own right, judged more so through an objective lens via whatever merits the community has decided to gauge the quality of toys by, but they're also the worst offenders of all possible 'bad' dinosaur toys across time. At least, that's how I'm now interpreting the discussion and its use of language, concerning the 'worst dinosaur toy'.

That being said, it seems [to me] how we define the qualities of the toys that ultimately grant them a presence within this thread is still being worked out, by the means of discussion. The very existence of this thread serves as the arbiter of how we identify undesirable traits within the hobby and how one can define them. It's quite fascinating to me and I hope to learn more about the intricacies of the trade as more and more examples get posted and a richer consensus is formulated as a result of these conversations. As Carl Jung would say, "No tree, it is said, can grow to heaven unless its roots reach down to hell." Looking forward to seeing how far down these roots can ultimately reach! 

[Libraraptor]

This has been an interesting discussion so far, led with an effort of understanding each other instead of closing one 's ears and repeating the own statements over and over again. I enjoy this thread which began with a simple idea.  Thumbs up! 

[Crackington]

Uh oh, I got myself in trouble.

I sincerely apologize to the Marx figures! I was comparing them to toys from the 90's because that's when I thought they were made. Knowing that they're some of the first dinosaur toys gives me a different perspective on them.

My only defense is that the Marx figures were old enough to drink before I was born, which is a very shoddy defense. I should've known better.

(And if anyone here sincerely wanted me to give them away they probably shouldn't have told me what a piece of history they are. ;p )

Don't worry, T @tinyvinyldinos  we were only pulling your leg! You've got some nice vintage dinos there!

The Forum's a good place find out about the various brands too, old and new. Check out our friend's @Libraraptor's collection thread, an education in itself!

@Gwangi  - I think there were older mass produced dinosaur toys too. Wasn't that Twistum Brontosaurus from the 1920s? There were also some expensive models of the Crystal Palace dinosaurs too in Victorian times, but pretty exclusive and not really toys.

[Gwangi]

Uh oh, I got myself in trouble.

I sincerely apologize to the Marx figures! I was comparing them to toys from the 90's because that's when I thought they were made. Knowing that they're some of the first dinosaur toys gives me a different perspective on them.

My only defense is that the Marx figures were old enough to drink before I was born, which is a very shoddy defense. I should've known better.

(And if anyone here sincerely wanted me to give them away they probably shouldn't have told me what a piece of history they are. ;p )

Don't worry, T @tinyvinyldinos  we were only pulling your leg! You've got some nice vintage dinos there!

The Forum's a good place find out about the various brands too, old and new. Check out our friend's @Libraraptor's collection thread, an education in itself!

@Gwangi  - I think there were older mass produced dinosaur toys too. Wasn't that Twistum Brontosaurus from the 1920s? There were also some expensive models of the Crystal Palace dinosaurs too in Victorian times, but pretty exclusive and not really toys.

@Crackington, I had never before heard of that Twistum Brontosaurus, that's really quite interesting! I know the SRG figures are older, from the 1940's, but they're metal so wouldn't count as toys. There are also some porcelain dinosaurs from the 1950's too. According to Donald Glut's Dinosaur Scrapbook there were also plaster dinosaurs molded from wax sculptures by Charles Knight for the American Museum of Natural History in 1898. Glut claims that those were the first mass produced dinosaurs. But when I say that the Marx toys were the first mass produced dinosaur toys I mean just that, toys, I know there are older dinosaur collectables. But I suppose that Twistum Brontosaurus can't be so easily dismissed. It's a toy, and it's older than the Marx ones.

[tinyvinyldinos]

Uh oh, I got myself in trouble.

I sincerely apologize to the Marx figures! I was comparing them to toys from the 90's because that's when I thought they were made. Knowing that they're some of the first dinosaur toys gives me a different perspective on them.

My only defense is that the Marx figures were old enough to drink before I was born, which is a very shoddy defense. I should've known better.

(And if anyone here sincerely wanted me to give them away they probably shouldn't have told me what a piece of history they are. ;p )

No worries, glad you're being a good sport about it. I'm in the same boat, the Marx figures were already old when I was born, but my dad had a collection of them from his childhood and I remember playing with those. Recently I've been collecting and reviewing them for the Dinosaur Toy Blog and have become quite enamored with them, and a bit defensive of them. Marx made a lot of toys, not just dinosaurs, and collecting old Marx toys is a hobby in its own right. The dinosaurs were first produced in 1955 and they were the very first mass produced dinosaur toys. The start of it all, ground zero. There are some older dinosaur collectables, from the 1940's and made of metal, but not actual toys.

Now those toys, @Fembrogon, definitely qualify as bad. Not the worst, but unquestionable bad.

I understand completely- the Marx figures aren't just wonderful toys that brought a lot of people joy, they're a valuable part of dinosaur toy history and should be respected as such. I appreciate your patience in educating me about that instead of just yelling at me!

[need4swede]

This has been an interesting discussion so far, led with an effort of understanding each other instead of closing one 's ears and repeating the own statements over and over again. I enjoy this thread which began with a simple idea.  Thumbs up!

If I'm wrong about something, I want to be first in line to find out. It is by no means beneficial to me to encourage my arrogance to lug the burden of ignorance alongside me everywhere I go - and it ain't beneficial to others, either - it's quite the contrary.

I had a great professor who taught me to navigate through discussions by adopting the views of the opposing side and build them up as if they were my own. This has to be done genuinely, of course, and not merely as an act or a facade.  If you can't even argue your point against yourself using your own words, then perhaps you ought to rethink your original thesis. I did that here, taking on the points @Gwangi was making, to the best of my ability and confirming that my understanding of their argument was accurately represented by asking directly, and it allowed me to reach a similar consensus. It's like an inverse straw man approach - worked out quite well in this instance.

I love the discussion - interests me more than the toys themselves, so I appreciate the time and effort required to present a sound argument, regardless of where I stand on the matter. Very grateful to have had this conversation and to those who participated in it.

[Duna]

I think I have some winners ...    I am accostumed to vintage "screaming Chinasauruses" from the 80s and I have a nice representation of them (for example the collectable AAA full series from 1987), but these creatures are .... special:



I can even imagine the species of "this":


This "polacanthus" has an indigestion or so ...

[Faelrin]

@Duna Those are certainly charming in their own way.

[Duna]

@Duna Those are certainly charming in their own way.

Yeah, I like them a lot. Charming and ... highly toxic by the way ...