Controversial opinions on dinosaur toys

[Pachyrhinosaurus]

Not toy specific, but I would much much rather see an outdated museum hall that has a comfortable dimly lit atmosphere with interesting displays, as opposed to a washed out over-lit art gallery looking bland white room with updated skeletal mounts.

I just said the same thing in another thread. The old Smithsonian fossil hall was one of the best, but I feel like the new exhibit isn't as great. It's too open, overlit, and there's too much glass. The old one just felt more welcoming and easier to navigate with the different partitions instead of being one big hall like it is now. Not to mention, that the older models and displays make it feel nostalgic.

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

Not toy specific, but I would much much rather see an outdated museum hall that has a comfortable dimly lit atmosphere with interesting displays, as opposed to a washed out over-lit art gallery looking bland white room with updated skeletal mounts.

I just said the same thing in another thread. The old Smithsonian fossil hall was one of the best, but I feel like the new exhibit isn't as great. It's too open, overlit, and there's too much glass. The old one just felt more welcoming and easier to navigate with the different partitions instead of being one big hall like it is now. Not to mention, that the older models and displays make it feel nostalgic.

It's why they need both.  Keep the original explain this is how it once was and then add a new section.

[JPuggy]

I could see it as a "history of our understanding of history" exhibit

[stargatedalek]

It isn't even just nostalgia, it's the "new style" of exhibit always being so samey, boring, and washed out. Modern animal displays are suffering for it too. What works for art displays fundamentally does not work for naturalistic subjects like plants or animals.

[suspsy]

It isn't even just nostalgia, it's the "new style" of exhibit always being so samey, boring, and washed out. Modern animal displays are suffering for it too. What works for art displays fundamentally does not work for naturalistic subjects like plants or animals.

So damned true. The ROM used to have some great dioramas for their mammals and reptiles. Now all it's got are a bunch of specimens standing on platforms behind glass walls. Soulless.

[Kapitaenosavrvs]

Maybe not that controversal, but The Hobby of collecting prehistoric Figures got a lot more expensive. At least for me. Which dampens the joy over new Figures. And a lack of Interest emerges. Not the fault of the Figures. They are better than never before.

[Fembrogon]

I can certainly sympathize; a few years back I was more focused on kaiju collecting, but it got too expensive so I changed focus to dinosaurs. Companies like Safari ltd. and Collecta still offer a lot of options for good prices; however, a lot of the new & enticing brands which have emerged in the last few years make it easy to be tempted into spending bigger bucks per figure again.

[MLMjp]

As a collectors of multiple figures apart from dinosaurs, I agree the collecting hobby overall is definitely getting more expensive.

-Dinosaurs? Not too much, although PNSO...
-Transformers? Deluxes with what used to be voyager prices, voyagers with what used to be leader class prices...
-SH Monsterarts? Definitely
-Anime figures? Dont get me started on those...

[Halichoeres]

I'm not the first to bring this up on this thread, but I think it bears repeating: there can be no such thing as a definitive figure of an organism known only from fossils.

Back to toys: I rather have oversized feet than stability issues or tripods due to unnaturally bend tails.

Hmm, personally I'd rather just live with having it lean against a more stable figure or a wall or something. But oversized feet aren't the worst thing in the world, provided they don't warp and fail at their only job.

[suspsy]

Yes, anyone who's into Transformers can testify that it's not a great time to be a fan finance-wise. A Voyager now costs what used to be the price of a Leader.

[Fembrogon]

I'm not the first to bring this up on this thread, but I think it bears repeating: there can be no such thing as a definitive figure of an organism known only from fossils.

...And to jump on to another tangent, I think this recognition is a big part of why I've rekindled my interest in more vintage/retro toy lines. Our understanding changes so much sometimes that the figures we sing praises for today could end up laughably incorrect in another few years; it feels unfair to come down harshly on old figures just for being "out of date", when many of them were state-of-the-art at the time, and jus genuinely well-made besides. The toy industry has evolved just like our scientific knowledge, and I think it's valuable to acknowledge the history of the hobby, even if one doesn't care much for the older aesthetics.

[Halichoeres]

I'm not the first to bring this up on this thread, but I think it bears repeating: there can be no such thing as a definitive figure of an organism known only from fossils.

...And to jump on to another tangent, I think this recognition is a big part of why I've rekindled my interest in more vintage/retro toy lines. Our understanding changes so much sometimes that the figures we sing praises for today could end up laughably incorrect in another few years; it feels unfair to come down harshly on old figures just for being "out of date", when many of them were state-of-the-art at the time, and jus genuinely well-made besides. The toy industry has evolved just like our scientific knowledge, and I think it's valuable to acknowledge the history of the hobby, even if one doesn't care much for the older aesthetics.

Interesting. I haven't had that impulse. Don't get me wrong, I can definitely appreciate a lot of vintage figures for how well they did given the knowledge and resources available. Without them it's hard to imagine what the hobby would look like now, or even whether it would exist. And while I can acknowledge their importance and their artistry, my own shelves are more of a natural history museum than a toy history museum. For that reason I try to fill them with the most well-informed representations I can get, but with the full knowledge that they'll never be perfect and don't need to be. Have people been coming down harshly on vintage figures? I haven't noticed but maybe I'm just not paying attention.

[Mellow Stego]

I'm not the first to bring this up on this thread, but I think it bears repeating: there can be no such thing as a definitive figure of an organism known only from fossils.

...And to jump on to another tangent, I think this recognition is a big part of why I've rekindled my interest in more vintage/retro toy lines. Our understanding changes so much sometimes that the figures we sing praises for today could end up laughably incorrect in another few years; it feels unfair to come down harshly on old figures just for being "out of date", when many of them were state-of-the-art at the time, and jus genuinely well-made besides. The toy industry has evolved just like our scientific knowledge, and I think it's valuable to acknowledge the history of the hobby, even if one doesn't care much for the older aesthetics.

Interesting. I haven't had that impulse. Don't get me wrong, I can definitely appreciate a lot of vintage figures for how well they did given the knowledge and resources available. Without them it's hard to imagine what the hobby would look like now, or even whether it would exist. And while I can acknowledge their importance and their artistry, my own shelves are more of a natural history museum than a toy history museum. For that reason I try to fill them with the most well-informed representations I can get, but with the full knowledge that they'll never be perfect and don't need to be. Have people been coming down harshly on vintage figures? I haven't noticed but maybe I'm just not paying attention.

Continuing with this, Something that a lot of people seem to forget is artistic interpretation. Especially when dealing with animals we've never seen in person.

[Fembrogon]

Interesting. I haven't had that impulse. Don't get me wrong, I can definitely appreciate a lot of vintage figures for how well they did given the knowledge and resources available. Without them it's hard to imagine what the hobby would look like now, or even whether it would exist. And while I can acknowledge their importance and their artistry, my own shelves are more of a natural history museum than a toy history museum. For that reason I try to fill them with the most well-informed representations I can get, but with the full knowledge that they'll never be perfect and don't need to be. Have people been coming down harshly on vintage figures? I haven't noticed but maybe I'm just not paying attention.

Criticisms of older toy lines pop up from time to time; this particular thread is probably a hot spot for it. I certainly don't want to put down people who don't have vintage in their collection - yours is an excellent example of very specific purpose, @Halichoeres - but sometimes there have been statements implying older toys are inherently inferior, even just by merit of BEING older. I can remember being slightly dismissive of older reconstructions once or twice as a kid; now that attitude strikes me as misguided.
Sorry if I derailed anything; your statement just struck a chord with me and I felt like elaborating on another application of that principle.

[stargatedalek]

While I agree with that general sentiment, I feel it's important to point out that there are exceptions to every rule. While our understanding of extinct organisms is for the most part ever-changing, not knowing exactly what would be right is very different from not knowing what is wrong, and we know of an awful lot of provably wrong things we can say with certainly aren't going to be changing.

Microraptor would also be an exception. An animal we know in more detail than many species that went extinct in only the past few hundred years. The only things we don't know about its appearance is the colour of the skin/scales on the face and feet, the colour of the claws, and the colour of the eyes.

Even if it is theoretically possible to create a "definitive accurate" reconstruction, a "definitive best" version won't ever really be a thing. There are always going to be variations in preference of scale, art style, and material, for even a provably 100% correct interpretation. This is why there can never be a single definitive version of a modern animal model either.

[Faelrin]

I think you've all made some really great points.

A small counterpoint, but could perhaps someone have a "definitive" on a personal level, in the sense they are satisfied and see no need to buy a newer version, etc, or at least for quite some time? I feel this way with the older Papo Allosaurus (even though I was tempted to get the PNSO when it was new, but I ultimately changed my mind about it after giving it time), and the newer PNSO Parasaurolophus, as examples.

But yes science marches on, and since we are long past the chance to see them in the flesh (short of well preserved specimens like that one Psittacosaurus that even had the cloaca intact), some things we might never get right (such as coloration short of exceptional evidence found, as what happened with Psittacosaurus, Anchiornis, Microraptor, etc, but even so it is the coloration of just those specimens on an individual basis).
@stargatedalek You've made really good points about scale, etc, preference too.

[spiceagent11]

'Might be slightly off topic, but I've always wished for dinobots that transform into sleeker, more modern looking "dinosaurs"... But a lot of transformers fans prefer they keep their kaijuesque 1980's forms.

[Halichoeres]

@Fembrogon I see what you mean, I went back through this thread a bit and Invicta in particular comes in for some criticism, which is funny as it's the only vintage line I've ever entertained the possibility of collecting. I'd say generally vintage figures are mostly pretty beloved here, though, with the exception of a few adolescents.

While I agree with that general sentiment, I feel it's important to point out that there are exceptions to every rule. While our understanding of extinct organisms is for the most part ever-changing, not knowing exactly what would be right is very different from not knowing what is wrong, and we know of an awful lot of provably wrong things we can say with certainly aren't going to be changing.

Right, I'm not saying anything goes, either. I think some people lean too hard in the other direction, as in, "you can't prove some of them didn't look like this and paleontologists are always changing their minds!" As you say, there are lots of things we know that we can't un-know. Paleontology is a ratchet that slips a tiny bit backward from time to time but generally moves toward a limit that isn't quite truth, but all we can glean from the available material, which is sometimes quite a lot. Things that are understandable in a vintage reconstruction would annoy me in a new release.

I think you've all made some really great points.

A small counterpoint, but could perhaps someone have a "definitive" on a personal level, in the sense they are satisfied and see no need to buy a newer version, etc, or at least for quite some time? I feel this way with the older Papo Allosaurus (even though I was tempted to get the PNSO when it was new, but I ultimately changed my mind about it after giving it time), and the newer PNSO Parasaurolophus, as examples.

I don't see why not!

'Might be slightly off topic, but I've always wished for dinobots that transform into sleeker, more modern looking "dinosaurs"... But a lot of transformers fans prefer they keep their kaijuesque 1980's forms.

Welcome to the forum, S @spiceagent11
That would be fun to see! But as we've seen with the JW franchise, pop culture has a lot of inertia and it takes a long time to incorporate updates in the science!

[Duna]

Criticisms of older toy lines pop up from time to time; this particular thread is probably a hot spot for it. I certainly don't want to put down people who don't have vintage in their collection - yours is an excellent example of very specific purpose, @Halichoeres - but sometimes there have been statements implying older toys are inherently inferior, even just by merit of BEING older. I can remember being slightly dismissive of older reconstructions once or twice as a kid; now that attitude strikes me as misguided.
Sorry if I derailed anything; your statement just struck a chord with me and I felt like elaborating on another application of that principle.

Yes, I agree with you, too. And I've seen that criticism here from time to time. @Halichoeres yes, mostly the reason that vintage lines seem to be now "appreciated" in the forum is because some of us have made an effort to show the marvels of this lines (and that tends to silence criticism a bit) and without any doubt we have to thank @Fembrogon for his reviews on these figures. I really appreciate them because you can't judge those figures for its accuracy (as it's done with most: accurate here, innacurate there, nice pose, nice colours and so). Reviews of vintage figures are very challenging but grateful because you have to first understand collectioning in that time, what the sculptor wanted to transmit and express, and the paleoart of that time (today very few figures (if any) represent actual paleoart and even is the other way round, the paleoart is done after/with the figure) ... it's not a matter of accuracy or not. I think not even one vintage collector look for actual accuracy in those figures.

Vintage collectors go for more than that. It's a different way of collecting and it can't be understand without the love of paleoart. For example, when you have a Linde dinosaur, you can feel the pleasant touch they have (you have to get one in your hands to understand what I mean), you can appreciate the ultralasting plastic they used (70 year after they look like new), you can see that the figure was totally inspired in Zallinger's mural (which dinosaur collector doesn't know that drawing?!), you can imagine those children from the 50s, 60s ... playing and loving these figures without thinking if they were accurate or not. It was just pure love of dinosaurs. I've said Linde but I could have said the same of Marx, Nabisco, Ajax, Timpo, Starlux, Sinclair ... Even some Chinese figures from the 90s (for example UKRD 1991 some) were inspired in paleoart, too. In my humble opinion, I consider vintage collecting to end with Jurassic Park.

I understand those people (young or not) that don't like collecting vintage because most of them are new collectors and don't know them or just want only the most accurate, the last version. And I must say, that that isn't at all excluding, because that is precisely what I do: I only collect the most accurate version of the species I want (and the least accurate goes to my children) and I also collect vintage. So one thing doesn't exclude the other. In fact, I think it makes collecting even better. To have a lovely quadrupedal Starlux spinosaurus based on G. Caselli's drawing from the 70s and a PNSO accurate one with the swimming tail can't be better. It's like travelling in time.

I myself didn't collect any vintage at all until last year (I started collecting about 3 years ago). And how I came with that? I must say that all those lovely reviews had a lot of influence. How can you realise you love something if you just don't even know it exists? Research and a lot of reading did the rest. Once you know some vintage lines, it's easier to know more. And then you discover most of them are depictions of those drawings you have always loved, I didn't know there were figures from that time. That paleoart you saw when you were a child and boosted your love in dinosaurs.

I may be a bit "selfish" but less interest in vintage means more figures available for me until that people realise they would like collecting ... Each vintage figure sold means one less in the market for the new collectors. And those figures will never be replaced. But be optimistic as for many lines it's never too late to start collecting, just be patient and one day your desired figure will appear, no doubt.

[Fembrogon]

Thanks for the review shout-out, @Duna; but don't forget @Gwangi who has also been covering a lot of the Marx figures in recent months, among some other retro-style figures from time to time (plus more contributions by other regular or guest reviewers).