Safari 2019 Hopes and Dreams

[Shonisaurus]

Honestly from my point of view but would be a true hypocrite to date for me there is not a toy figure of allosaurus that I get too much attention although there are some good market I would like to make a spectacular allosaurus by some company and sincerely I would like it to be the company Safari and that the sculptor was the same as the giganotosaurus of Safari.

Safari 2017 giganotosaurus excites me and also its sculptor so I'm sure I would never disappoint an allosaurus made by that paleoartist or even made by Doug Watson.

Allosaurus is hyper-represented but from my point of view there is not one that catches my attention enough to think that it is one of my favorite figures. Safari and Collecta could invest this opinion of mine (surely wrong) on the toy allosaurus making a spectacular and awesome one.

[Beegfood]

My biggest hope is of course a huge Sinornithosaurus!(my favorite dinosaur, no models of it at all, which I can afford) My second biggest hope is a 2015 version Spinosaurus aegyptiacus! My third biggest hope would be a Helicoprion 1:30-1:40 Scale 

Other than that I would love to get a Troodon, a 1:40 Scale Argentinosaurus, an updated Postosuchus with a base, a nicely coloured Stegosaurus, a new Allosaurus, a super detailed, darkly coloured Deinonychus, a huge, very detailed Terror Bird,a bigger Smilodon, a 1:40 scale Gigantoraptor, a big Sarcosuchus, an Andrewsarchus, a nice looking, naturally painted Metoposaurus, a big Giant Orthocone, a nicely detailed,1:40 Scale, brown Edmontosaurus and maybe a Pterodaustro with a super detailed head.

Also turtles would be nice to see

Mammal wise I would love to see a Paraceratherium, a Platybelodon and maybe a cave bear...

Those would be so cool!

Troodon is so underrepresented in the toy market

Havent read the thread so far, these are all my suggestions!
Actually these arent just Safari wishes, they are wishes for Safari, CollectA and Papo!

[Shonisaurus]

I would like as Beegfood that Safari made a platybelodon and especially a paraceratherium that for me is very poorly represented in the figures of prehistoric toy mammals, and with a considerable size (paradoxically one of the largest terrestrial prehistoric mammals is not made in the toy market with a considerable size.

[Sim]

Beegfood, I think you forgot to say what your third biggest hope is?

Out of what you listed, I'd be very interested in Sinornithosaurus, Deinonychus and Stegosaurus.  I don't think I have much preference for how a Deinonychus would be coloured, I'd just like it to look good and plausible.  It being darkly coloured could be a nice choice.  I agree with you in wanting a nicely coloured Stegosaurus.  I have thought that if Safari makes a new Stegosaurus, the one thing that could disappoint me about it is a colouration I dislike.  I know it's a possibility, since among the prehistoric Wild Safari figures there are colourations I like a lot (e.g. 2017 Coelophysis, 2015 Sauropelta, 2014 Monolophosaurus, 2012 Ceratosaurus, 2011 Kaprosuchus), colourations I feel neutral about, but also a few colourations I dislike which have prevented me from wanting to have the figure (e.g. 2018 Ankylosaurus, 2017 Deinocheirus and Kronosaurus, 2016 Plesiosuchus).  I'm hoping that if Safari makes a new Stegosaurus it'll either have a colouration I don't dislike, or since Stegosaurus (stenops) is one of my favourite dinosaurs if it has a colouration I dislike that won't be enough to stop me from wanting the figure.

Troodon is so underrepresented in the toy market

There is an unsatisfactory situation, but it's not that Troodon is underrepresented, it's that troodontids are underrepresented in the toy market.  Troodon has become the most famous member of this group because a number of different North American troodontid species have been lumped into it, which is very unfortunate for a number of reasons:

1. Over time, it's been shown it's not justified to consider these species as being Troodon and they have all been separated from it into different genera, e.g. Stenonychosaurus, Latenivenatrix, Pectinodon, Albertavenator.

2. The original Troodon specimen is just one tooth, and it's been found to be unable to link other remains to it.  So that's what Troodon really is, an invalid genus based on one tooth.

3. None of the troodontid species that were lumped into Troodon even come from the same formation as the original Troodon tooth!

4. As far as I'm aware, all the North American troodontid species are actually incompletely known to an extent where their appearance is uncertain.  And even when all the North American troodontids were combined to create what people often think Troodon is, the result is still so incomplete that the appearance is uncertain.

5. There's some Asian troodontids that are known from remains that allow their appearance to be understood better.  Unfortunately, the North American troodontids being combined into Troodon has resulted in the Asian troodontids getting much less attention than they deserve.

Troodontids haven't been well-represented in toys.  There aren't any toys of troodontids I find appealing, and the very few times one has been made it's almost always represented Troodon.  In addition to what I said I'd most like to see from Safari earlier in this thread (Stegosaurus, Deinonychus, Herrerasaurus and Plateosaurus), there are two more dinosaurs I'd very much like to see from Safari and one of these is the troodontid Saurornithoides.  I thought it would be best for me to wait until the hopes and dreams thread for 2020 to express my interest in these two other dinosaurs, maybe I'll wait until then before I say anything more about them.

[Beegfood]

Actually I wrote it, but somehow it disappeared...
Now it is corrected!

[Jose S.M.]

Gigantoraptor would be nice, there's a lack of nice big figures of that genus, the best figures of it are on the small size. I would like a Therizinosaurus too, hopefully in 1:35 or 1:40 scale.

[Shonisaurus]

Gigantoraptor would be nice, there's a lack of nice big figures of that genus, the best figures of it are on the small size. I would like a Therizinosaurus too, hopefully in 1:35 or 1:40 scale.

Gigantoraptor and therizinosaurus are obligatory figures. The only thing I ask Safari sculptors to do in a large size not like the deinocheirus of 2017 (Nice figure but quite small for the size that said dinosaur represented) and apart from that these two gigantoraptor and therizinosaurus figures deserve to be of a much larger size I do not care about the scale, at least they are like the feathered Tyrannosaurus of Safari 2017 although it does not have the same size.

Except the gigantoraptor of Capcom and Collecta by the way both good but too small has not been made an acceptable gigantoraptor of size and detailed.

The therizinosaurus that was once made by the company Great Dinosaur Safari is spectacular but it is well worth an update by the company and the therizinosaurus disappeared of dinosaurs of Safari China is discontinued, by the way very good. Safari deserves to make a therizinosaurus that competes with other companies such as Collecta or Papo and even surpasses them and has potential to spare is perhaps one of the best dinosaur companies today with Collecta.

I would prefer a gigantoraptor and a therizinosaurus at 1:35 scale and even at a 1:30 scale. I agree with you Jose.

[Halichoeres]

You're telling me you don't find the Xidi/Lontic Saurornithoides compelling?


I'd also prefer a new Saurornithoides to a new Troodon. I like a lot of Beegfood's other ideas, like the Metoposaurus, Helicoprion, Sarcosuchus, Edmontosaurus, and Pterodaustro.

[amargasaurus cazaui]

I find it almost unforgiveable that none of the toy campanies have jumped on the opportunity to provide a 1/6 size  Pegomastax or Kulindradromeus......highly under-represented species with some unique characters. A mini Pachycephalosaurus would be interesting! Aquilops was a very unique animal we have the most scant of remains for but nothing in the toy market. The newly discovered specimen of nodosaurid from Canada, I believe named Zuhl would make a great model, and  Gargoyleosaurus still lacks  for a toy although being perhaps the oldest known of the nodosaurid/anklyosaurid family.

[Jose S.M.]

Kulindadromeous would be great indeed. Pegomastax also would make an interesting choice. And there's two thyreophorans that are very new but would be great choices for the next years, Zuul was an ankylosaur I think, and the nodosaur was Borealopelta. I find Gargoyleosaurus a very interesting choice for a thyreophoran too.

A personal favorite of mine has been underepresented despite being very well known, the Camarasaurus. I guess is kind of "bland" but having already Diplodocus, Apatosaurus and Brachiosaurus it would be nice to complete the "most famous" Morrison formation sauropods. I think that and Stegosaurus are my biggest wishes for next year.

[Sim]

Gigantoraptor and therizinosaurus are obligatory figures.

I disagree.  The incompleteness of the fossils of these two animals means their appearance is not known, so I think it's not necessary to make them.  Is it worth it for a toy company to make figures of these animals when more of their fossils could be found which show the toys are inaccurate?  I'll explain what I think below.

If you're making something like Gigantoraptor and Therizinosaurus where the appearance is so uncertain, there's a high risk toy versions will be shown to have reconstructed the animal incorrectly if more remains are found, just like what happened with CollectA's first Deinocheirus.  However, Therizinosaurus's popularity might make it worthwhile for a toy company to make anyway.  I get the impression Gigantoraptor doesn't have as much popularity as Therizinosaurus though, which makes me think Gigantoraptor is more risky to make than Therizinosaurus.

[amargasaurus cazaui]

Gigantoraptor and therizinosaurus are obligatory figures.

I disagree.  The incompleteness of the fossils of these two animals means their appearance is not known, so I think it's not necessary to make them. 

I do not disagree with the assessment made here but I do offer that we have more for remains of the Gigantaraptor than many other well established dinosaurs with multiple figures on the market. The issue might be however, they are almost embryonic or if not, freshly hatched......i.e "Baby Louie" The fossil probably doesn't help much for an adult reconstruction, but we do have remains for Gigantaraptor

[Shonisaurus]

The therizinosaurus is more popular, and I think it is a commercial success.

The gigantoraptor as many species of dinosaurs and prehistoric animals is a risk for a toy company like Safari but they could at least once a year "risk" in a species and make a gigantoraptor. However, in the Planet Dinosaur series of the magnificent BBC television channel, the gigantoraptor became popular and many children and adults remember its egg laying defending it from alectrosaurus and the male putting his life at risk by taking turns with the female when hatching the eggs and dying in the company by the sandstorm, and their ritual fights among other details.

I do not think that the gigantoraptor is so unknown, although a therizinosaurus on the part of Safari at a scale of 1:30 or 1:35 would be a good idea for the sculptors of this spectacular brand.

[Beegfood]

Kulindadromeus is a nice idea, maybe in a sitting pose like this?

[suspsy]

Gigantoraptor and therizinosaurus are obligatory figures.

I disagree.  The incompleteness of the fossils of these two animals means their appearance is not known, so I think it's not necessary to make them. 

I do not disagree with the assessment made here but I do offer that we have more for remains of the Gigantaraptor than many other well established dinosaurs with multiple figures on the market. The issue might be however, they are almost embryonic or if not, freshly hatched......i.e "Baby Louie" The fossil probably doesn't help much for an adult reconstruction, but we do have remains for Gigantaraptor

We have enough fossil remains of Gigantoraptor to recreate a skeleton of it. It's true that the upper portion of the skull is unknown, but many dinosaurs lacking skulls have still been made into toys. And it's unlikely that Gigantoraptor's skull was radically different from other oviraptorosaurs.

https://goo.gl/images/LULy4J

[Sim]

The upper part of the head differs a lot among different oviraptorosaur species, and very much defines the appearance of the animal.  Below is an image to help illustrate this, which shows the only known part of Gigantoraptor's head is the lower jaw:

  (image source)

Did Gigantoraptor have a crest or not?  If it had a crest, what did it look like?  Is it worth it for a toy company to use one of its slots for a new figure on a Gigantoraptor with an invented head instead of one of the oviraptorosaurs with a known head shape, or another prehistoric animal that has a known appearance yet lacks a good toy version?

----

I do not disagree with the assessment made here but I do offer that we have more for remains of the Gigantaraptor than many other well established dinosaurs with multiple figures on the market. The issue might be however, they are almost embryonic or if not, freshly hatched......i.e "Baby Louie" The fossil probably doesn't help much for an adult reconstruction, but we do have remains for Gigantaraptor

Regarding those dinosaurs you say are more incompletely known than Gigantoraptor and have multiple figures available, I'm guessing they would be ones that are quite popular or famous.  Baby Louie has been classified as a new genus named Beibeilong, although I've seen doubt expressed about it warranting separation from Gigantoraptor.  In any case, since Baby Louie is so young I don't think it's helpful for a reconstruction of an adult Gigantoraptor.

[suspsy]

See, I'm looking at that comparison image and I *don't* see that much variation. Certainly not as much as the variation that exists among hadrosaurs or ceratopsians. Some crests are a little larger than others, but overall, it's not that big a deal.

Did Gigantoraptor have a crest or not?  If it had a crest, what did it look like?  Is it worth it for a toy company to use one of its slots for a new figure on a Gigantoraptor with an invented head instead of one of the oviraptorosaurs with a known head shape, or another prehistoric animal that has a known appearance yet lacks a good toy version?

My answer is a resounding YES.

I really couldn't care less if Safari were to make a Gigantoraptor with a head that ends being rendered inaccurate as a result of a new discovery. It wouldn't take away from the quality of the toy, especially if Doug Watson was the one who sculpted it. The Feathered T. rex may or may not seem to be too shaggy now, but that sure didn't stop it from being voted Best Toy of 2017 by Prehistoric Times readers. Or look at Dan LoRusso's Gigantoraptor. It's got a prominent crest and it looks great. It's downright criminal that Battat hasn't released it. It's clearly a top quality dinosaur figure, regardless of whether or not it's accurate.

I realize people have different standards and preferences, but the way I see it, we have Gigantoraptor skeletons in museum exhibits and Gigantoraptor represented in paleoart, so there's absolutely no harm in Safari releasing a Gigantoraptor toy. I'd buy it the instant it became available.

http://www.luisrey.ndtilda.co.uk/

[Shonisaurus]

I would honestly buy without a doubt a gigantoraptor made by the company Safari and the same I can say therizinosaurus (I hope that if they do a gigantoraptor Safari is not going to leave anyone indifferent that figure) but I sincerely prefer to make it at a scale 1: 30 or at the most 1:35.

[Mini Minmi]

I would also love and buy a gigantoraptor. That beast was weird and magnificent. It was made iconic by its role(s) on Planet Dinosaur and I would love to own one that does it justice. And I agree that I think Doug Watson could make it legendary.

[Sim]

With regards to making figures of prehistoric animals with a very uncertain appearance, I've reflected on what people have said, and what I've said.  Through trying to understand how it all fits together, I'm thinking it's something that different people see differently.  For example, when someone says they don't see much difference in the oviraptorosaur head comparison, while I see the opposite.  Or how some would like to have certain prehistoric animals in figure form even when their defining appearance is uncertain, when there are close relatives, or other prehistoric animals, which are better understood.

The Feathered T. rex may seem to be too shaggy now, but that sure didn't stop it from being voted Best Toy of 2017 by Prehistoric Times readers.

Yes, it also came in first place in the top 10 2017 figures poll on this forum.  It seems to be one of Safari's best-selling prehistoric figures.  Something to consider is that a lot of people have continued to believe, and sometimes even argued, that the feathering on the 2017 WS T. rex is plausible after the evidence suggesting it isn't was published.  It's not a case of something being shown to indisputably differ from a figure as could happen if the head shape of an animal is discovered.  I think T. rex's extremely high popularity also helped make this figure so successful.  I've been wondering how the 2017 WS T. rex will be seen in the next few years.  Such as whether it will be regarded as satisfying the need for an accurate T. rex as much as it has up till now. 

(I hope that if they do a gigantoraptor Safari is not going to leave anyone indifferent that figure)

Well, I can tell you I would feel indifferent about a Gigantoraptor figure if it were made.  I'm not interested in figures representing a prehistoric animal where very unpredictable parts of their skeleton are unknown.  I respect that some people, including you, feel differently about this.  I don't usually comment on suggestions for species with an uncertain appearance.  The times I do comment, it's for a reason that matters strongly to me.  In this case, it was that you said, "Gigantoraptor and therizinosaurus are obligatory figures."  I felt that by saying this, you were speaking on my behalf as well with something I don't agree with.