Controversial opinions on dinosaur toys

[GiganotosaurusFan]

No good giga figures yet. PNSO's giga teaser excites me. It was the poster in 2021, showing a different reconstruction than the model in 2019.

[Fembrogon]

Personally I think both the Eofauna and the Wild Safari figures are great, outdated skull notwithstanding. The Carnegie is also really good for its time.

[Takama]

fragmentary species

should not be made into Toy figures

Rare Exceptions can apply, but most of the time it could bite you in the arse a year or two later

[Carnoking]

fragmentary species

should not be made into Toy figures

Rare Exceptions can apply, but most of the time it could bite you in the arse a year or two later

I can't say I agree with this.

For one thing toys and models can be instrumental to introducing the wider public to new species they may not have heard about. Only doing well-represented species would be quite limiting and a disservice to the bio-diversity of the mesozoic, or really any ancient time.

For another thing, getting it wrong shouldn't be anything to be ashamed of in a field as ever-changing as Paleontology.* If a company produces a model based on the inferred appearance of a species with precious little remains, only for a new find to come out a year or so later that completely upends the previous understanding, I think the model and old appearance still have some value, as they exist as a benchmark in the timeline of our understanding of the animal.

Spinosaurus is a prime example. The Carnegie figure is quite outdated by today's standards, but it was certainly top of the line back when it first released (as a lot of those figures were). Now that our knowledge of the true appearance of Spinosaurus has grown (though still not without its holes!), I still think the old Carnegie offering is a noteworthy piece of work that can be used to illustrate the evolution of our understanding, and the same goes for when new discoveries make the PNSO, or GR Toys, or Mesozoic Life offerings look outdated.

This has been true to all recreations of prehistoric life since the first discoveries of dinosaurs. So much turned out to be wrong with the statues of Benjamin Waterhouse Hawkins, the paintings of Charles R. Knight, and the creature designs of Crash McCreery and Stan Winston, but all of those examples (and so many others) were milestones in the road to our modern understandings.

So I think companies should definitely make these less well understood species as a means to celebrate new finds or even old ones that have been denied the limelight by the latest update for more skeletally complete and better understood specimens.

*Obviously if there are well known remains and a toy company ignores current understandings, that's a situation where getting it wrong is bad.

[GiganotosaurusFan]

Agreed.
@Fembrogon What all of these models you are listing are missing musculature in my honest opinion. Something like PNSO's Carcharodontosaurus would be better in my eyes.
Eofauna: skinny neck with non-detailed teeth
Wild Safari: even more skinny with no skin detail, non detachable base
Carnegie: even MORE skinny, tripod, less crisper detail

That's not to say that these are not good figures, I have the Eofauna and it's great but there are definitely things that could be improved.

[Faelrin]

@Carnoking I think this is a really interesting and insightful take. I especially agree about the importance of now outdated representations, as they are still often works of art, and a product of the time and then understanding. I think a good example of this for me personally is the Jurassic Park III Spinosaurus. It was a really good take on it back in 2001, and really opened up a lot of people's eyes about the existence of this interesting dinosaur. It's really fascinating how much it has evolved before our eyes in recent years, thanks to new breakthrough and lucky discoveries. I still have a fondness for that depiction, despite it being dramatically rendered outdated now. Another obvious example would be Iguanodon.

I think it's also good to remember there are also still many of those with good remains that are also poorly represented on the market, such as Herrerasaurus, some early sauropodomorphs like Eoraptor, Massospondylus, Plateosaurus, theropods like Utahraptor, Albertosaurus, or the many near-birds and birds, many ornithopods like Dryosaurus, Ouranosaurus, Tenontosaurus, Brachylophosaurus, Maiasaura in recent years, Saurolophus, etc, and even some ceratopsians like Centrosaurus and Chasmosaurus, that aside from BotM and PNSO, still otherwise lack figures of. Never mind all the non-dinosaur animals out there, that seldomly get figures, outside of the likes of the Woolly Mammoth, Smilodon, Dimetrodon, etc (and now I'm curious as to what those top ten contenders would be for most represented non-dinosaurs on the market. Time to do some research later).

[GojiraGuy1954]

fragmentary species

should not be made into Toy figures

Rare Exceptions can apply, but most of the time it could bite you in the arse a year or two later

I can't say I agree with this.

For one thing toys and models can be instrumental to introducing the wider public to new species they may not have heard about. Only doing well-represented species would be quite limiting and a disservice to the bio-diversity of the mesozoic, or really any ancient time.

For another thing, getting it wrong shouldn't be anything to be ashamed of in a field as ever-changing as Paleontology.* If a company produces a model based on the inferred appearance of a species with precious little remains, only for a new find to come out a year or so later that completely upends the previous understanding, I think the model and old appearance still have some value, as they exist as a benchmark in the timeline of our understanding of the animal.

Spinosaurus is a prime example. The Carnegie figure is quite outdated by today's standards, but it was certainly top of the line back when it first released (as a lot of those figures were). Now that our knowledge of the true appearance of Spinosaurus has grown (though still not without its holes!), I still think the old Carnegie offering is a noteworthy piece of work that can be used to illustrate the evolution of our understanding, and the same goes for when new discoveries make the PNSO, or GR Toys, or Mesozoic Life offerings look outdated.

This has been true to all recreations of prehistoric life since the first discoveries of dinosaurs. So much turned out to be wrong with the statues of Benjamin Waterhouse Hawkins, the paintings of Charles R. Knight, and the creature designs of Crash McCreery and Stan Winston, but all of those examples (and so many others) were milestones in the road to our modern understandings.

So I think companies should definitely make these less well understood species as a means to celebrate new finds or even old ones that have been denied the limelight by the latest update for more skeletally complete and better understood specimens.

*Obviously if there are well known remains and a toy company ignores current understandings, that's a situation where getting it wrong is bad.

Complete Animal doesn't equal Well Represented. Look at how many Edmontosaurus skeletons we have, and there are only two good figures of that genus. They're both Regalis, too. No Annectens.

[GojiraGuy1954]

@Carnoking I think this is a really interesting and insightful take. I especially agree about the importance of now outdated representations, as they are still often works of art, and a product of the time and then understanding. I think a good example of this for me personally is the Jurassic Park III Spinosaurus. It was a really good take on it back in 2001, and really opened up a lot of people's eyes about the existence of this interesting dinosaur. It's really fascinating how much it has evolved before our eyes in recent years, thanks to new breakthrough and lucky discoveries. I still have a fondness for that depiction, despite it being dramatically rendered outdated now. Another obvious example would be Iguanodon.

I think it's also good to remember there are also still many of those with good remains that are also poorly represented on the market, such as Herrerasaurus, some early sauropodomorphs like Eoraptor, Massospondylus, Plateosaurus, theropods like Utahraptor, Albertosaurus, or the many near-birds and birds, many ornithopods like Dryosaurus, Ouranosaurus, Tenontosaurus, Brachylophosaurus, Maiasaura in recent years, Saurolophus, etc, and even some ceratopsians like Centrosaurus and Chasmosaurus, that aside from BotM and PNSO, still otherwise lack figures of. Never mind all the non-dinosaur animals out there, that seldomly get figures, outside of the likes of the Woolly Mammoth, Smilodon, Dimetrodon, etc (and now I'm curious as to what those top ten contenders would be for most represented non-dinosaurs on the market. Time to do some research later).

I don't think there is a good Woolly Mammoth figure that isn't the Papo one

[Thialfi]

@GojiraGuy1954 you don't like the Carnegie one?

[Carnoking]

Complete Animal doesn't equal Well Represented. Look at how many Edmontosaurus skeletons we have, and there are only two good figures of that genus. They're both Regalis, too. No Annectens.

When I said well represented, I was speaking in terms of the fossil record, although I see now why referring to that as "well represented" is confusing.

I'll also make an addendum here and agree with @Faelrin's and @GojiraGuy1954 notes about how there are also plenty of very well understood animals that could (and very well should) have models made of them before more fragmentary species are done. I just don't agree with the notion that if it's fragmentary, it shouldn't be done at all.

[Mellow Stego]

This might be a bit controversial but I think Mattel's therizinosaurus is probably one of the better figures representing the animal. Even if it is in that JW stlye.

[GojiraGuy1954]

@GojiraGuy1954 you don't like the Carnegie one?

Retired model

[Gwangi]

This might be a bit controversial but I think Mattel's therizinosaurus is probably one of the better figures representing the animal. Even if it is in that JW stlye.

When you consider the other options that exist for Therizinosaurus, you probably aren't wrong. We need Safari or PNSO to give us a definitive version.

[Halichoeres]

All large carcharodontosaurids look exactly the same

A friend of mine from grad school is one of the authors on a description for a forthcoming new large carcharodontosaurid genus, and while yes, they are distinguishable by this or that slight proportion change or knobbly bit on a bone, even he agrees that they are all pretty much the same. I'm sure as soon as it's published the same bros clamoring for a Tyrannotitan will be clamoring for this one too.

If it's known from decent remains, I don't see what's wrong with it.   

Oh, it isn't. I mean, it's enough material to know it's a distinct taxon based on stratigraphy and minor autapomorphies, but it isn't anything close to a complete skeleton. They are duty-bound to describe and publish it because it's informative in various ways, as any new taxon is, but it's a silly thing to base a figure on. But I think the same about most fragmentary species that are not obviously and visibly and externally distinct from better known ones. You've seen one carcharodontosaurid (with the exception of the ones with unusual neural spine morphology) you've seen them all.

I do think @Carnoking has a point that some things are not known from complete remains but are nevertheless obviously distinct can be interesting subjects for figures. In those cases, I think the good of highlighting the known variation, even if incomplete, outweighs the inevitable inaccuracies arising from speculation. We don't have to pretend we know nothing just because we don't know everything.

[Faelrin]

@Mellow Stego I agree honestly. I think the only issues it has is maybe the head/teeth (though the head is not known, but could be inferred from other relatives), the feet (again not known, but can be inferred, specifically regarding the placement of the first toe), and maybe a deeper gut (which the film animal seems to have, but the reason the toy doesn't have it is probably because of the action feature gimmicks). I think the balance of feathers and skin that both the toy and film animal have seems to be plausible for such a large animal (assuming it wasn't entirely featherless due to its large size, but some other therizinosaurs had feathers, so I'm not fully sure, but I think having the belly, hands and feet featherless while the neck, back and tail are, is a good balance). The neutral posture, and the articulation on the legs, arms, and hands helps posing it as well.

[Concavenator]

Here it goes: I'm still waiting for a definitive Parasaurolophus figure. Yep. I said it.

I haven't found one that truly satisfies me, and since it's not a species I'm particularly fond of, until one that is really top notch appears I'm not pulling the trigger on one. Even if it's not my favorite dinosaur, someone's collection feels incomplete without one...so here I am, waiting.

Not even PNSO, Battat or Safari which might be the closest ones really do it for me. The PNSO is the closest, but I don't like the colors, the fact that it has cheeks, and the lack of the beefed up neck which Bertozzo suggests.

Something similar to this reconstruction by Gabriel Ugueto would do the job:

[Bread]

@Concavenator definitely not alone on this.

Also, that little dip in the neck of the PNSO parasaurolophus bothers me.

[JimoAi]

 Mattel makes mediocre to bad products with the figures with action features (not counting Hammond collection, mosasaurus, super posable indoraptor and huge sauropods)

I prefer lipless theropods like the ones from PNSO

Rebor is still a terrible company despite the recent good products

I personally prefer the collectA 2019 baryonyx to the Safari ltd 2021 version

[Sim]

@Concavenator definitely not alone on this.

Also, that little dip in the neck of the PNSO parasaurolophus bothers me.

Do you mean the dip in the back, which is an injury?  That bothers me about the PNSO Parasaurolophus, as well as its mouth looking weird to me.  I also don't see what's apparently so good about the PNSO Parasaurolophus.  Like the two of you I too am waiting for a Parasaurolophus that satisfies me.  Maybe a Beasts of the Mesozoic version?

Mattel makes mediocre to bad products with the figures with action features (not counting Hammond collection, mosasaurus, super posable indoraptor and huge sauropods)

I prefer lipless theropods like the ones from PNSO

Rebor is still a terrible company despite the recent good products

I personally prefer the collectA 2019 baryonyx to the Safari ltd 2021 version

I agree with all of this except that I prefer lipped theropods and I think all of Mattel's prehistoric figures are mediocre to bad.  I don't understand why people are so fond of the Mattel Jurassic World figures, they are cartoony at best and monstrous at worst, not to mention the terrible proportions on the feet and tails of some of the figures.  They strike me as suitable for little kids, but I don't see the appeal an adult finds in them.  I respect people liking them though, if they give someone happiness they're worth having.

[Gwangi]

Apparently, based on what I've seen lately, this might now be a controversial opinion. Mattel's Jurassic World line is the best line of dinosaur action figures since the days of Kenner and Tyco, and arguably better than them too. Anyone who thinks Mattel's toys are "bad" clearly doesn't remember the days when Hasbro was making Jurassic Park/World toys, or has forgotten what an actual bad dinosaur action figure looks like. Mattel's dinosaurs are made for kids, they're made to appeal to kids, and for some reason that seems to escape the mindset of many collectors around here.

Now, as an adult, why do I find them appealing? Because despite what critics say, they are well constructed, sturdy, and nicely detailed. They don't break the bank, so in the event that my kid wants to play with them, they can (that's what they're made for). Also, they're just big, dumb, and fun, so they appeal to the kid in me, a kid that just had fun smashing toy dinosaurs together and didn't give a crap about how big their feet or tails were. The adult in me that desires scientific accuracy and lifelike sculpts collects PNSO, Safari, CollectA, etc. but deep down inside there's still a 9 year old boy standing in a toy store, looking in awe at the Kenner T. rex but not being able to buy it. I couldn't buy those toys back then, but I can now, so I do. There seems to be a trend around here to dismiss nostalgia, or regard it as something bad, but I embrace nostalgia and as an adult, with a kid, mortgage, car payments, jobs, living through a pandemic, on the brink of WWIII and economic recession, I like to indulge that child within. You have to cling to the simple pleasures that make you happy.

Edit: I should also add that I'm not trying to pass judgement on those that don't collect Mattel. They're not for everyone and if you don't like them, I totally get it. I just think that the claim that they're bad is objectively wrong, especially when you consider what we got in the past.