Controversial opinions on dinosaur toys

[Dinoguy2]

Time for a new controversial opinion for the forum to dissect:

I like the stereotypical 'red plates, green body' colouration of Stegosaurus (and any variation of it) more than any other colouration that's been applied to a Stegosaurus figure so far.

YES! I was actually just thinking about trying to collect toys with this color scheme, but after I looked up "Stegosaurus" on eBay I realized I was in over my head

I have to say though, that the third (cream, brown, and white) Carnegie Stegosaurus is their best. But their fourth (red/green) just reminds me so much of a Charles Knight painting. I love it.

[Gothmog the Baryonyx]

I have to be the one to say I don't like red and green Stegosaurus very much, it doesn't look right to me.

I agree with the scale issue but I don't think that's a controversial issue.

[suspsy]

I understand and agree with the sentiment that Tyrannosaurus rex dominates the market at the expense of countless other genera, yet at the same time, I think it's utterly pointless to complain about it, or hope that the situation will ever change in the future. It's like hoping that the Crimson Avenger will someday be the face of DC instead of Batman, or that the civet will eventually surpass the African lion in popularity.

[Cretaceous Crab]

I do not like toy figures that make sounds, or have some kind of "action" (head thrust, biting, thrashing, etc). Just give me a plain action figure with more articulation, the better!

[PumperKrickel]

deleted

[Shonisaurus]

I sincerely like JP / JW dinosaurs from Nanmu Studio or Rebor more than Mattel's JP / JW dinosaurs.

On the other hand, I like the articulated figures of BoTM dinosaurs more than Mattel's articulated dinosaur figures. I know that both opinions are unpopular but I have to be honest.

[Jose S.M.]

I sincerely like JP / JW dinosaurs from Nanmu Studio or Rebor more than Mattel's JP / JW dinosaurs.

On the other hand, I like the articulated figures of BoTM dinosaurs more than Mattel's articulated dinosaur figures. I know that both opinions are unpopular but I have to be honest.

Maybe it's not that controversial but to me it's not a fair comparison in some respects. The Nanmu and Rebor are more like the figures people, mostly collectors, buy to display. Mattel are stylized and thought to be treated as toys to sustain hard play from childrens. They are designed differently. Also I think Rebor and Nanmu are much higher in price than Mattel's figures.

On that topic as much as I like Jurassic Park, I have no interest in dinosaur figures in the JP/JW style.

[Killekor]

Time for a new controversial opinion for the forum to dissect:

I like the stereotypical 'red plates, green body' colouration of Stegosaurus (and any variation of it) more than any other colouration that's been applied to a Stegosaurus figure so far.

I completely agree. That color scheme suits particularly well for Stegosaurus, and all the other paint schemes look bad to me (except the Schleich mini one which is nice).

Plus, I agree with LeviRawl about the sound feature (because it ruins the esthetic of the figure with screws) and about action features (because they're boring).

Also I don't mind when a figure it's in a tripod pose. Unlike other members of the forum, I prefear them over models with non-removable bases.

Killekor

[Halichoeres]

Mammoths have no business in prehistoric toy lines. They coexisted with humans for the vast majority of our existence, and they didn't go extinct until well after humans had developed writing systems. In no sense are they prehistoric. They're just among the first modern animals that we drove extinct.

[Ravonium]

Mammoths have no business in prehistoric toy lines. They coexisted with humans for the vast majority of our existence, and they didn't go extinct until well after humans had developed writing systems. In no sense are they prehistoric. They're just among the first modern animals that we drove extinct.

Somehow, I knew this would be your next post here...

While I don't think that coexisting with us for most of our existence is a valid rationale (as the vast majority of our existence is considered 'prehistory'), this doesn't make your main point invalid at all. Additionally, it is likely that humans were at least occasionally present on Wrangel Island, the only place where mammoths undoubtedly survived past prehistory, before the mammoths there became extinct. (mainly mentioning this as an argument could be made that they never contacted us in 'history', and are hence only relevant in our PoV as prehistoric animals)

[Dinoguy2]

Mammoths have no business in prehistoric toy lines. They coexisted with humans for the vast majority of our existence, and they didn't go extinct until well after humans had developed writing systems. In no sense are they prehistoric. They're just among the first modern animals that we drove extinct.

Yeah, the definition of "prehistoric" gets blurry. We have no written descriptions of mammoths by literate early cultures, but we do have artwork depicting them, Woolly rhinos, etc. and even well preserved mummies, so reconstructing them is not the guessing game it is for real prehistoric animals.

Didn't the Safari prehistoric line even include an extant horse?

[Shonisaurus]

Mammoths have no business in prehistoric toy lines. They coexisted with humans for the vast majority of our existence, and they didn't go extinct until well after humans had developed writing systems. In no sense are they prehistoric. They're just among the first modern animals that we drove extinct.

Yeah, the definition of "prehistoric" gets blurry. We have no written descriptions of mammoths by literate early cultures, but we do have artwork depicting them, Woolly rhinos, etc. and even well preserved mummies, so reconstructing them is not the guessing game it is for real prehistoric animals.

Didn't the Safari prehistoric line even include an extant horse?

I would like for me that some toy brand made at least a dozen different prehistoric horses. Except for Bullyland, no other prehistoric horse has been made by well-known brands or rather classic. Safari unfortunately seems to me that he has not made any prehistoric toy horse.

[Ravonium]

Didn't the Safari prehistoric line even include an extant horse?

If you're talking about the Przewalski's horse they released in 2017; Safari themselves didn't include it as part of the prehistoric line, but in the horse line. That didn't stop some online dinotoy shops from selling it, which, to some, would give the impression it was part of the prehistoric line.

[Dinoguy2]

Didn't the Safari prehistoric line even include an extant horse?

If you're talking about the Przewalski's horse they released in 2017; Safari themselves didn't include it as part of the prehistoric line, but in the horse line. That didn't stop some online dinotoy shops from selling it, which, to less knowledgable collectors, would give the impression it was part of the prehistoric line.

That explains it. I'm surprised dino toy stores didn't also sell the musk ox (or did they?). Both would display well with the other Pleistocene mammals.

[Ravonium]

That explains it. I'm surprised dino toy stores didn't also sell the musk ox (or did they?). Both would display well with the other Pleistocene mammals.

No, they didn't. Despite it making sense to, they also didn't sell the CollectA rendition, or said company's Saiga. (not all the stores I looked at were from North America)

[Halichoeres]

Mammoths have no business in prehistoric toy lines. They coexisted with humans for the vast majority of our existence, and they didn't go extinct until well after humans had developed writing systems. In no sense are they prehistoric. They're just among the first modern animals that we drove extinct.

Somehow, I knew this would be your next post here...

While I don't think that coexisting with us for most of our existence is a valid rationale (as the vast majority of our existence is considered 'prehistory'), this doesn't make your main point invalid at all. Additionally, it is likely that humans were at least occasionally present on Wrangel Island, the only place where mammoths undoubtedly survived past prehistory, before the mammoths there became extinct. (mainly mentioning this as an argument could be made that they never contacted us in 'history', and are hence only relevant in our PoV as prehistoric animals)

Ha ha, you know me so well. You're right that most of our existence is prehistory. I also think that 'prehistoric,' while a nebulous if conceptually useful way to think of human evolution and culture, is pretty meaningless when it comes to distinguishing ancient and modern fauna. I'd say any animal that survived to the Holocene is essentially modern. Even the Pleistocene is barely different, just a little colder on average.

Didn't the Safari prehistoric line even include an extant horse?

If you're talking about the Przewalski's horse they released in 2017; Safari themselves didn't include it as part of the prehistoric line, but in the horse line. That didn't stop some online dinotoy shops from selling it, which, to less knowledgable collectors, would give the impression it was part of the prehistoric line.

That explains it. I'm surprised dino toy stores didn't also sell the musk ox (or did they?). Both would display well with the other Pleistocene mammals.

The WS prehistoric line does include a modern coelacanth, an animal that literally has no fossil record. I wish they'd made it part of the sea life line and added an actual extinct actinistian to the prehistoric line.

[Kotori_Sonoda]

I find myself surprisingly enjoying action features. Sure it's a pain if I want to take pics-taking a picture of my Extreme Chomping T rex involves jamming a stick on the button and hiding it via camera angle-but it's just so much fun for play.
Yeah I'm a grown adult and I find myself making my dinosaurs fight each other, or terrorize those puny humans. Kudos to mattel for making me actually play with toys again

[suspsy]

I think Halichoeres makes some strong points about the woolly mammoth and other such animals not really counting as prehistoric. That's why I like to think of the DTB as a place where any extinct animal can be reviewed. I've done several reviews now of subjects that died out far more recently than the mammoth. And I plan to do more.

[Gwangi]

I think Halichoeres makes some strong points about the woolly mammoth and other such animals not really counting as prehistoric. That's why I like to think of the DTB as a place where any extinct animal can be reviewed. I've done several reviews now of subjects that died out far more recently than the mammoth. And I plan to do more.

Agreed. Everything alive today was around in prehistory. There are fossil whitetail deer that date back over 3 million years but you won't see one of those on the DTB, but something like a great aux or thylacine is fair game, as I see it anyway.

[suspsy]

Yes, or a dodo or a quagga or an ivory-billed woodpecker. I like to think we're doing our small part to promote conservation by reviewing recently extinct fauna. God knows the world is badly in need of conservation education right now.