Controversial opinions on dinosaur toys

[Eatmycar]

TBH I don't think disliking action figures here is a controversial take. The forum on a whole seems to prefer solid plastic or vinyl figures like Safari, PNSO, or similar brands. But to say they look cheap is ridiculous without holding one in your hands. They certainly are not cheap.

[Dusty Wren]

I mean... it is the controversial opinions thread.

Yeah. But other forum members are also free to express their opinions about your opinion.

[Sim]

The paint, detail, accuracy, articulation, of BotM is all high quality.  There's nothing cheap about them.

[shahinos]

I haven't said or believed they are of low quality. But judging by photos and videos they look cheap, in my mind. Maybe I would change my mind holding one of them, but that ain't gonna happen.

Still ugly though. G'night!

[Fembrogon]

I haven't said or believed they are of low quality. But judging by photos and videos they look cheap, in my mind.

Forgive me for misunderstanding, but are these two statements not directly contradictory? In my experience calling something "cheap" specifically implies lower cost, usually at the expense of quality.

I get not liking dino action figures in general, though; I like the concept of articulation, but that always means sacrificing the flow of the sculpt to some extent. It's a trade-off not everyone will like.
And I think people have had mixed feelings about the color choices since the line began, whether it's due to the animal references or the overall bright/complex color schemes. They're quite the contrast from more commonly subdued coloration seen in artwork, although that's probably exactly why a lot of people also like them.
I wouldn't accuse them of being badly done, however; even the color schemes I'm less fond of are clearly produced with great attention to detail and consistency. Just look at the ever-reductive paint apps on Mattel figures, or even the regrettable flubs on the occasional Safari Ltd. figures, and the difference is clear.

[Faelrin]

S @shahinos I'll give you the benefit of the doubt just this once. If you legitimately don't like the colorations or articulation that's fine, and many others have expressed similar sentiments in the past. Not everything is my cup of tea either. The way you have articulated your opinions on this matter however do come across pretty inflammatory. Such as saying these figures are "ugly", or the particular remark you made towards the upcoming Cyberzoic Stegosaurus. Again if you don't like the articulation that's absolutely fine, but all that sculpted detail (and even getting the articulation to function properly) can take an excessive amount of time to work on (although same can also apply to working with digital models). It is pretty disrespectful to the people involved (such as David Silva who worked on the Stegosaurus and many others) who put lots of time and effort into the sculpts to disregard all of that, just because one finds the articulation unappealing, etc. Honestly I don't think disliking articulation on figures is even a controversial opinion here. I mean the fact the figures do so poorly in the yearly polls when compared to static figures such as from CollectA, PNSO, Safari Ltd, etc, speaks highly of that. It could also be a scale thing too (as most here tend to prefer the 1:30-1:40 scale range). I mean I know folks have spoke about not having space, or can afford the many of the larger (and also more expensive) figures in the past. Even @Sim 's recent response speaks to this (and I agree with him, the smaller figures like the 1/35 T. rex, 1/18 Guanlong, or the 1/18 dromaeosaurids I'm behind on definitely hit a sweet spot that are both more affordable, space conscious, and also just easier to pose. In fact I covered this in my recent review on the 1/35 Kickstarter Exclusive T. rex).

Additionally I have many Beasts of the Mesozoic figures in my collection. They are anything but hollow (such as when compared to Mattel's anyways, which I also have a bunch of). I mean the larger ones definitely have some heft to them. I specifically recall D @Dino Scream3232 in his review of the 1/18 T. rex mentioning getting a work out just from posing it with how heavy it was. I don't have that one on hand, so I can't attest to it, so I'll just have to take his word on it. Correct me if I'm wrong @suspsy but didn't you also mention such in your review of the Dino Riders Kickstarter exclusive one? Or I could just read it again to jog my memory.

Also saying the complex paint apps looks cheap speaks of ignorance on how toy production is done. The more paint apps, the more pricier a figure (but of course it is only one of many factors, see below). Mattel's figures are a good comparison as those are much cheaper in comparison with various price points. Their figures typically consist of a base plastic coloration, with a few additional paint apps. Cheaper figures like the $7 Attack Pack and whatever typically lack painted claws, in some cases, especially as of late, no paint on the tails either. They typically have less articulation too. More expensive figures like the Hammond Collection ones, or the previous Amber Collection typically have quite a bit more paint apps (and also more articulation). David has been incredibly transparent on the production process in the kickstarter updates for all three series, which are great for teaching people unfamiliar with toy and action figure production.

Here's something I dug up from a while back that I asked David on the ceratopsian kickstarter about how paint apps contribute to toy price, and other things:

I can't remember if I asked this before but if I have I apologize, my memory is trash at times. I was having a discussion on reddit about how some of Mattel's Jurassic World offerings typically do not paint the claws. I was reminded about update #68 from the raptor series kickstarter which had some information about additional paint apps (and colored plastic parts).

How much do additional paint applications factor into the cost of a toy these days (as well as articulation for that matter), like percentage wise maybe? I know Mattel's offerings are much cheaper then yours (although similar to Kenner's in price), so I guess the lack of painted claws, etc is to help keep the prices of the toys down (and all the while hopefully the employees, factory and otherwise are paid a living wage), while still offering some articulation (and a bit more at times then older Kenner and Hasbro ones had).

I was also wondering if the toy production has only gotten more expensive from 90's if not earlier, because of economic inflation (or whatever). Many of Kenner's and Hasbro's toys had more complicated paint apps at times then what is being offered by some companies at times today (like Mattel or Hasbro did back in 2015 for the Jurassic World lines).

Now to have this relevant to this particular kickstarter and series, if I had to guess the complex paint apps would be a reason why the behemoths of this line (such as the adult Triceratops and the future adult Tyrannosaurus I'm sure) would go for over $100 easily (articulation, size, etc)?

Here was his response:

Wow, that's actually a lot to cover, but I'll try to summarize. In general, paint apps do add a significant per unit cost and in many cases, paint masks must be created for each application. So paint does factor in quite a bit. Also, the amount of parts and assembly involved will increase the price as well. For example, many of the Jurassic World figures have limited articulation so they have fewer parts and therefore less assembly labor. And finally, production run sizes play a key factor as well in lowering the cost per unit price. The more you can order from the factory, the lower the per unit price. So larger companies with big distribution channels such as Mattel or Hasbro can easily do runs of 50K-100K on a regular basis thus locking in a very low per unit cost. For a very small company like mine, I produce between 1K-4K at a time so my cost per unit will be higher. These three factors- paint, assembly labor, and order quantity- all play a key role in determining the final retail cost. And I never even mentioned the cost for metal tooling just to begin production, but that's a different topic. As for the prices going up- absolutely. Even without general inflation, toy production costs have gone up significantly in the past 20 years due to better working conditions and pay requirements for factory workers (which I have no issue with) and the price of oil increasing in 2008 which set everything higher at that time and never went back down. I think these factors are why you now see such a distinction between collector toys and children's toys- they usually either have to be priced high and cater to collectors, or priced low and kept basic for the younger audience. Hope that helps answer your questions.

[suspsy]

I haven't said or believed they are of low quality. But judging by photos and videos they look cheap, in my mind. Maybe I would change my mind holding one of them, but that ain't gonna happen.

Still ugly though. G'night!

This is hopelessly self-contradictory on your part.

[Lynx]

I mean... it is the controversial opinions thread.

Yeah. But other forum members are also free to express their opinions about your opinion.

I'm more than aware? Calling someone a troll/bait and telling others to ignore them though just for expressing their opinion isn't right.

and before like 3 people jump me for this, I don't necessarily agree with their opinion, just don't think it's proper to automatically assume they are a troll because you disagree

[Faelrin]

@Lynx I would recommend reading my above response to them. Here it is. In short though, I found their initial responses inflammatory and disrespectful to the craftmanship that goes into these figures, and as such I initially dismissed them as a troll. Basically I think if they made their points in a much more approachable manner, it wouldn't have tipped me off as such.

[Pliosaurking]

I'll also add to my earlier comment, I generally prefer static models to articulated ones. And I'm not a fan of some of the Colour schemes in the Botm line. There are also a few figures we're I feel like the articulation doesn't look the greatest on there sculpts. But I do think the line is fantastic and the several figures I do own are some of the best models in my collection. The detail is fantastic and the paint jobs are beautiful. And for the record also feel rather well made and solid. My only complaint about them is the qc, which I've unfortunately had a few negative experiences with, that David quickly sorted out might I add. Overall it's a fantastic line and I'm quite excited for the Tyrannosaurs and cyberzoic!

[Bread]

@Lynx I am pretty sure it was the blatant negative and hypocritical statements they were making, as a result members, even myself, assumed they were antagonizing/trolling/whatever you want to call it...

Especially regarding the comment "Wouldn't want it even if I were paid to own it" followed with the multiple assumptions of low quality even when they never claimed to own one. Plus they stated they will never want to. Just seems like ignorance to me.

Nothing wrong with criticism, but they could have at least backed up their opinion?

[shahinos]

So, didn't believe my posts would create this much discussion.

Firstly, I agree that the Stego comment was phrased poorly. I still think the model is outright unattractive, but I could have stated it differently.

Secondly, I've stated quite clearly (I believe) that my opinion is based on looks, not feels. I seem to recall quite a few negative reviews about the ugliness of various Schleich and Papo newcomers for 2023 in their respective threads, based solely on promotional images, without any rebuttal from forum members. Why can't I base my opinion on looks as well? Because of this (and the pricing, to be honest), I'm not inclined to buy any BotM, which in turn obviously makes it difficult for me to change my opinion.

Thirdly, Fembrogon and suspsy, I don't see the contradiction between having the opinion that they look cheap and at the same time acknowledging that that might not be the case in reality. Again, my opinion is based on the information I have, which is footage and video. I'm not sure we're understanding each other here, sorry if I can't explain it better than this.

Fourthly, Bread, I have backed up my opinion when I argued that for me, the figures looks like Dino Riders. I totally understand that BotM are way more sophisticated than Dino Riders in every possible way though. It's just the connection I draw, right or wrong.

Fifthly, Faelrin, thanks for your elaborated reply and you're totally correct that I have absolutely zero clue about toy production and its costs. I understand that calling something "ugly" and just leaving it like that, especially from a newcomer like me, can seem like a bad approach. I'll keep that in mind for the future. I also understand what you mean about being disrespectful to creators, but I disagree that you shouldn't be able to criticize a model (or model lines) you find unattractive, regardless of who has done it or the amount of time invested in the model. Sure, you can say it in a different way and I wouldn't even have mentioned the Stego if I hadn't already started the discussion earlier. Also, I'm sure David Silva could care less what an anonymous poster thinks of his very successful dino lines.

For me, a troll is someone who either keeps on baiting everyone in post after post after post, or someone who posts something inflammatory and then just disappears. I don't think I can explain my opinions better than what I've tried in this post and I don't want to do a circle discussion where further disagreements won't lead anywhere, nor just leave the topic without giving an honest reply to everyone. I've read everything people have posted. I agree with some critique, tried to stand up for my initial thoughts in some. For me, the discussion is over. Please feel free to reply, I'll like your posts as a sign that I've read them.

[Bread]

So, didn't believe my posts would create this much discussion.

Firstly, I agree that the Stego comment was phrased poorly. I still think the model is outright unattractive, but I could have stated it differently.

Yes, there is nothing wrong with not liking it, but a comment like that seems bating for an argument/an argument waiting to happen.

Secondly, I've stated quite clearly (I believe) that my opinion is based on looks, not feels. I seem to recall quite a few negative reviews about the ugliness of various Schleich and Papo newcomers for 2023 in their respective threads, based solely on promotional images, without any rebuttal from forum members. Why can't I base my opinion on looks as well? Because of this (and the pricing, to be honest), I'm not inclined to buy any BotM, which in turn obviously makes it difficult for me to change my opinion.

I would argue that you can not necessarily say a figure has low quality purely based on looks without ever holding said item. That's like reviewing a restaurant through Yelp, saying the food looks awful and has low quality, but you never have eaten there...

Yes, I agree, you are not inclined to purchase said figure(s). However, why bash a figure in terms of, and according to your opinion, "low quality"? Again, I have, and I think I speak for other members here that they purely agree with this notion, nothing wrong with saying they "look ugly" or "seamlines are distracting" etc., but I simply can not stand the judgement for "low quality" when in fact they are as high of quality. Yet, you say this and have not physically appreciated said item. Seems as though you don't know what you are talking about, thus members jumped to the conclusion you were trolling/antagonizing.

Thirdly, Fembrogon and suspsy, I don't see the contradiction between having the opinion that they look cheap and at the same time acknowledging that that might not be the case in reality. Again, my opinion is based on the information I have, which is footage and video. I'm not sure we're understanding each other here, sorry if I can't explain it better than this.

Although this is towards to those two members, I have to agree and say it is blatant contradiction. How I broke it down: You claim a figure is low quality/cheaply made but never held said item. You also refuse to ever hold said item. Even claiming for one of them "wouldn't even if I was paid to do so"

Fourthly, Bread, I have backed up my opinion when I argued that for me, the figures looks like Dino Riders. I totally understand that BotM are way more sophisticated than Dino Riders in every possible way though. It's just the connection I draw, right or wrong.

How is that evidence? "They look like Dino Riders"
I saw that you used youtube videos/reviews as evidence. I am curious to what reviewers exactly because the majority seem to favor that BOTM is high quality.
Also, there is nothing wrong with comparing them to Dino Riders, in fact I believe, and correct if I am wrong, but David's inspiration for this line was from Dino Riders.

I won't comment on the last two paragraphs. Faelrin explained their reasoning in their original post in which you are replying to, and for that I don't think there is much adding to, and I feel it would be repetitive. Faelrin explained it perfectly and within reasoning.

Although I agree that there is nothing wrong with criticism/disliking a figure for so so/etc., but the way at which you described your reasoning with a hint of ignorance, is the result of an angry mob with pitchforks and torches.

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

I don't see any negatives comparing them to Dino Riders. Dinosaurs and Sci Fi are a great combination.

[Faelrin]

S @shahinos
Thank you for reading my post and your response here. I don't think there's anything wrong with disliking something and stating it, or criticism even. I've done that plenty of times with some of Mattel's recent offerings. I try to be constructive about it when I can though, but sometimes my emotions do get the better of me too (I'm autistic for what it's worth), such as with the recent Hammond Collection JPIII raptors (admittedly my expectations were high after waiting 5 years for them to be made, which probably only served to set myself up for disappointment in that regard). I'm glad you understand why your earlier responses gave me that impression initially. It is clear to me now that you are not trolling, but just were rather blunt about the way you feel. I suppose my own biases towards these figures also caused me to take shock at such comments.

But as we are discussing BotM I will give my honest possibly controversial opinion? I'm not particularly fond of the coloration used on the Nasutoceratops. It's not that I think it is a bad coloration, in that I know there was a lot of attention to detail used on it. I know that many do in fact like it. Just not my cup of tea, and I'm not entirely sure why exactly. Perhaps its something about the combination of colors that doesn't click with me? Maybe because my first real exposure to Nasutoceratops was through JW: BaBR aside from the Safari Ltd figure, and I just really like the coloration of that design more perhaps? I've experienced this before in a way with Parasaurolophus throughout the years. It wasn't really until the PNSO figure came out that one had a coloration that just "clicked" with my internal desires I guess. That said I think the sculpt is still really good, and would like to own it, and it is one of my favorite ceratopsians. If I recall correctly I think it might be included in Cyberzoic so that might be my chance at an alternative coloration, that I might find more preferable. I also initially felt this way about the Chasmosaurus earlier on, but it's surprisingly grown on me over the years.

@Bread Yes David did take some inspiration from Dino Riders, but he's also made it clear that the line was born out of a need that nothing on the market catered too (highly articulated, and scientifically accurate dinosaur figures). Thankfully there is plenty on the market for that now, thanks to his work. I know I felt as he did when I first started getting into collecting dinosaur figures as an adult, since I was primarily an action figure collector at the time, though I've also come to enjoy static figures as well over the years (if my huge bulk of Safari Ltd, and others is anything to go by).

[Fembrogon]

Thirdly, Fembrogon and suspsy, I don't see the contradiction between having the opinion that they look cheap and at the same time acknowledging that that might not be the case in reality. Again, my opinion is based on the information I have, which is footage and video. I'm not sure we're understanding each other here, sorry if I can't explain it better than this.

This makes more sense than it initially came across, thanks for the clarification. It's completely reasonable (even normal) to judge an item on external materials, especially regarding expensive merchandise.

[Sim]

I don't see how you can think BotM figures look cheap.  The paintjobs are complex, the detail is high quality, the accuracy is high showing a good level of research, and the articulation is of a high standard.  I don't understand how they can look cheap to someone.

A controversial opinion I have:  I find Marco makes distasteful, for the same reason as Nanmu.  What they are doing is plagiarism and unoriginal.  And frankly I think it's bad taste to build a brand based on other people's palaeoart.

[suspsy]

I don't see how you can think BotM figures look cheap.  The paintjobs are complex, the detail is high quality, the accuracy is high showing a good level of research, and the articulation is of a high standard.  I don't understand how they can look cheap to someone.

This. 100%.

[Dinoxels]

A controversial opinion I have:  I find Marco makes distasteful, for the same reason as Nanmu.  What they are doing is plagiarism and unoriginal.  And frankly I think it's bad taste to build a brand based on other people's palaeoart.

I think Nanmu has become a sad joke. All they do is continue to churn out very marginally different statues of the T. rex and the Spinosaurus. I don't care if it's profitable for them, I still think it's a terrible waste of talent and I can't fathom why anyone would want several of the exact same design on their shelves. It's straight up boring.

Certainly an interesting take. I like their products because they have something that isn't available for either quality, price, or etc. from other sometimes official companies. Again, all entitled to our own views revolving figures.

I think Nanmu has become a sad joke. All they do is continue to churn out very marginally different statues of the T. rex and the Spinosaurus. I don't care if it's profitable for them, I still think it's a terrible waste of talent and I can't fathom why anyone would want several of the exact same design on their shelves. It's straight up boring.

Completely agree here though.

[Flaffy]

A controversial opinion I have:  I find Marco makes distasteful, for the same reason as Nanmu.  What they are doing is plagiarism and unoriginal.  And frankly I think it's bad taste to build a brand based on other people's palaeoart.

I'm pretty neutral on this subject matter. Marco and Nanmu are filling a gap in the market that official products either can't or don't bother filling.

For example, Prime 1 Studio occasionally produces the odd tie-in figures when a major Jurassic film arrives. But the products are most definitely not worth the price, especially the cheap paintjobs on the final figures. Moreover, Marco and co. managed to pump out 22 new figures just like that, quite a few of which have no equivalent on the market; when official sources barely produces a fraction of what these third-party sources do, more often than not recycling the same species/designs for the millionth time whilst ignoring the rest.

Official licences also comes with tons of restrictions and red tape that negatively affects creative flow and subsequent output. While third-party sources are free to do whatever as they're not constrained by Universal hovering over them.

That's my take at least. Had official sources been able to step up their game and produce what the fans *actually* want, we'd have fewer unofficial third-party producers.