Controversial opinions on dinosaur toys

[ceratopsian]

On the whole I prefer herbivores to carnivores. I know how nature is red in tooth and claw etc, but I like my models to be calm rather than chomping into something else or looking desperately terrified. I hate it when bipeds keel over, no matter how wonderful the sculpt looks. I don't care if stability is achieved by a permanent base. I am not a fan of support by means of acrylic rods.  I don't like articulated jaws because you can see the join. I like a certain amount of scientific accuracy but a figure has to appeal to me aesthetically, not just in scientific terms. I would avoid in all likelihood a figure I think too cartoonish or wildly inaccurate - but perhaps irrationally I like the occasional model with nostalgic appeal even if it is outdated. I don't mind if my models are not in scale with each other.  I can fall for "cute" - but perhaps that is not too unpopular!

[Nimravus]

I do prefer carnivores to herbivores, but I would like to see more ornitopods in the market.
Bases are not especially important for me if that makes the figurine stable. I don't like rods.
Scale is important,  especially when there is not too much room to keep your stuff! I don't usually buy models bigger than 1/20 because of space issues. I would like to have most part of the PNSO pieces if they were not so big, though. I personally think they are beautiful.

[Nimravus]

By the way, TRex is boring

[The Atroxious]

Hoo, I have a lot of these. They don't call me the master of unpopular opinion for nothing. Let's see, where to begin?

- I don't care for the Beasts of the Mesozoic line, and I never have. It's a great concept that's ruined by awful color schemes. I can't take it seriously if a Linheraptor has the exact same plumage colors as a bee eater and a velociraptor shares its looks with a bearded vulture. Basically the same thing Tyrantqueen said about using the colors of extant animals. I'm still on the fence about whether Build-A-Raptor is worth it, but my bank account says "no" at present.

- As I recently pointed out in another thread, I love the darkened eyelid/orbit area on dinosaur toys. I always see people complain about how it makes the dinosaur look "zombie-esque" or like it's wearing eyeshadow, but I think it's a beautiful accent. Maybe it's because the animated Watership Down was such a huge influence on my artistic sensibilities growing up, and that was a feature seen in the Efrafans.

- I actually support the "feather mohawk" people complain about, within reason of course. Feather crests exist in an incredibly extensive range of extant birds, from passerines to accipitrids, columbimorphs, bucerotiformes, piciformes, gruiformes, opisthocomiformes, otidimorphs (need I go on?) and most significantly, galloanserae, or fowl. If feather crests are this widespead among birdkind, I think it's safe to say that "feather mohawks" are more than acceptable, they're downright probable in many genera.

- I rather prefer my dinosaur toys without lips. It's not a deal breaker if it has them, but the lack thereof does make the scaly dinosaurs look more crocodilian than lizardish, which is very much a plus in my books. That plus I just have a thing for teeth. Big, jagged, impressive looking teeth. Extra bonus points for snaggleteeth. (I'm looking at you, Indoraptor.)

- Tyrannosaurus is indeed boring. It's a genus that I have no interest in buying anytime in the near future, and I haven't bought one since I was maybe eight or nine years old.

- Funny you guys should mention preferring herbivores. I feel two ways about this. Theropods are far and away my favorite dinosaur group, and the only group I bother collecting, but it feels like most dinosaur enthusiasts I encounter think theropods are boring, so that's one count against me. On the other hand, my top favorite nonavian theropods all probably ate plants, but to this day there's still a stigma against plant-eating theropods, with some people still believing that it has to be an obligate carnivore to be classed as a theropod.  So apparently I like the "boring dinosaurs" but I also like the "wrong type of boring dinosaurs". Sigh. (Though, for what it's worth, I like my plant eaters to be just as tough, if not tougher, than the meat eaters. You know, like in real life.)

[Neosodon]

There is such a diversity of preferences it's hard to really judge what's unpopular. But I do like small figures around 2 to 4 inches to represent small dinosaurs. Also I like dinosaurs kind of stiff in their more natural posses. A neck curvature of 90 degrees or more, sprawled legs and tails that rap around. Those I find looking unpleasant.

[Primeval12]

SPINOSAURUS IS BETTER THAN T. REX. I am glad that the t. rex died in Jurassic Park 3. SPINO FOR LIFE . In all seriousness, I love spinosaurus. I love how weird it looks. It is a very interesting creature. I have many spinosaurus toys, prolly more than rexes.

[tanystropheus]

Unpopular opinion: Anatomically accurate T-rex is not all that different from the JP T-rex in the grand scheme of things. It's a decent approximation.

[Shonisaurus]

I find other ceratopsian such as protoceratops, pentaceratops, arrhinoceratops, centrosaurus, chasmosaurus, medusaceratops or diabloceratops more interesting than the hegemonic ceratopsian triceratops. I would like them to be treated more in the toy market.

On the other hand, I like daspletosaurus, tarbosaurus bataar, alioramus, gorgosaurus, albertosaurus and eotyrannus in the toy market more, that the tyrannsaurus rex are less known and interesting or more (so little known in the toy market) that is The super powerful dinosaur figure and most famous interesting in the world. Although some of the dinosaurs that I have named are very similar to the tyrannosaurus rex, I would like there to be more of those figures.

[Sim]

I forgot to mention this one earlier: I dislike feather crests a lot, and they will often guarantee I won't buy a figure if it has one.  I often don't like how feather crests look in extant birds too, but as I like birds I will always appreciate a bird for what it is.

- I actually support the "feather mohawk" people complain about, within reason of course. Feather crests exist in an incredibly extensive range of extant birds, from passerines to accipitrids, columbimorphs, bucerotiformes, piciformes, gruiformes, opisthocomiformes, otidimorphs (need I go on?) and most significantly, galloanserae, or fowl. If feather crests are this widespead among birdkind, I think it's safe to say that "feather mohawks" are more than acceptable, they're downright probable in many genera.

Extant birds that don't have feather crests are also very widespread among different groups of birds though.  It also seems to me that in most of the bird groups you mentioned, species will more often not have feather crests than have it.

One thing that led to me disliking feather crests so much was that when the main toy companies started making feathered dinosaur toys, they would keep giving them feather crests, unless the dinosaur had a bony crest.  I feel it was misrepresenting feathered dinosaurs as almost always requiring a feather crest, which was frustrating for me since I already generally didn't like how feather crests look.  Feathered dinosaur figures with feather crests have continued to be made frequently since then, but I'm very happy that now there's also ones that don't have feather crests, mostly thanks to Safari.

I'm grateful to live in a green area where I often see lots of birds.  I've always liked birds, and plants and how plants grow together to create an environment.  Of the birds I usually see here in the city I live in, the following lack feather crests:
Columbiformes: Wood pigeon, feral pigeon, collared dove.
Passeriformes: Eurasian magpie, carrion crow, common blackbird, blue tit, European robin, Eurasian jay.  Also two other birds which I'm not sure of the species, but look like members of this group.
Psittaciformes: Ring-necked parakeet.
Piciformes: Great spotted woodpecker.
Anseriformes: Mallard, mute swan, Canada goose, greylag goose.
Charadriiformes: At least two species of gull.
Gruiformes: Eurasian coot.

As shown above, the number of bird species over here without feather crests is very high.  In contrast, there is only ONE species I usually see here that has feather crests:
Pelecaniformes: Grey heron.

So, the way I feel about it is unless a species is known to have a feather crest, I don't like how they look if they are given one.  And, how frequently extant birds do or don't have feather crests suggests many prehistoric genera didn't have feather crests.

[Halichoeres]

What I'm learning in this thread is that there aren't that many opinions that are genuinely unpopular. Or people are holding back.

[amargasaurus cazaui]

Ceratopsians with butt Mohawks  were so ten years ago.......
Also the market needs more basal species of dinosaurs over 50 new ceratopsians all identical except horn, frill, spike arrangement
Theropods are overdone and boring....

Rebor lives up to their name....they bore then re-bore.....

[John]

In my mind,if there is no attempt at doing a dinosaur or prehistoric animal as accurately as possible,then it is a waste of time.These were real animals,not Toho Godzilla characters that have designs that can be changed to make them look "cooler".

[tyrantqueen]

Rebor lives up to their name....they bore then re-bore.....

Hehehe...savage

[MLMjp]

Prehistoric mammals take spots that could be filled by dinosaurs, pterosaurs or marine reptiles in toy lines.

I would prefer an Edmontosaurus figure based on E.annectens rather that E. regalis. I like the long snouted non-crested one over the not so long snouted crested one.

All dinosaurs toy lines should be made in scale. Only exception being smaller species, but it will be nice if we get those in scale with the mainline via mini dinos toobs/packs.

[Patrx]

I've thought of another one! Several of my favorite toys and figures are small animals in pretty large scales, even 1/1. Small dinosaurs are some of my favorites, like basal ceratopsians, compsognathids, hypsilophodontids, and heterodontosaurids, and I like models that allow you to see 'em up close and in detail. I'm guessing this isn't an especially popular opinion, since there are very few products like that!

[Halichoeres]

All dinosaurs toy lines should be made in scale. Only exception being smaller species, but it will be nice if we get those in scale with the mainline via mini dinos toobs/packs.

I would like it if most things were 1:40 scale, but very small animals don't really work, so I think I prefer a few different scales. But I do wish more lines used any scale at all.


Oh, and here might be a genuinely unpopular opinion: I have a difficult time comprehending nostalgia. I understand the appeal of the artistry of certain vintage figures, but I don't really understand, for example, the desire to re-acquire toys of one's childhood (or even ones that a person missed out on in childhood).

[Ravonium]

First off, I'm surprised this thread actually got this many responses, considering all my past topics.

Secondly, here are some opinions I've seen here that I have to comment on:

I have a difficult time comprehending nostalgia.

This, to me, pretty much the reason I can't get into most older dinosaur toy lines.

Prehistoric mammals take spots that could be filled by dinosaurs, pterosaurs or marine reptiles in toy lines.

For me, the problem isn't the companies making mammals, but rather that the mammals they choose to make are rather uninspired and can be predicted as being yet another elephant or yet another carnivoran. I personally find CollectA making a remake of T. rex based on the latest paper just as much, if not more, of a waste of production spots.

By the way, here's another unpopular opinion I forgot to post in my initial list: I personally find the trend of 'hating mammals because certain groups are oversaturated' to be as annoying as the oversaturation of mammals in animal collecting spheres. For me, it seems like an over-generalisation of the situation regarding mammals.

I don't believe in 'voting with one's dollars'.

I agree with this if we are talking in the most literal sense of that analogy.


Also, just a few quick thoughts on a few common opinions expressed:

-While I do think T. rex is boring, I'd say most members of Carnosauria are more boring.
-I find most theropods more interesting than most ornithscians.
-I personally don't mind bases as long as they actually add something to the figure visually (as opposed to the utilitarian bases of CollectA; those I hate).

[Faelrin]

@Halichoeres You made an interesting point, that I think would be fun to discuss. I honestly want to buy some figures I had in my childhood, and while there is some nostalgia involved (memories of playing with them, etc), I suppose I legitimately like those figures now enough to want them again, because why bother if they don't actually interest me now? Edit: Like I feel like nostalgia alone wouldn't be enough for me, because it is not like I would be able to appreciate them in the same way as my younger child mind did back then (such as when I played with them, even though I still find some gimmicks amusing, but of course not to the same extant then). Like I would really like to pick up the Kenner TLW 'Junior' figure again, even if Mattel has a nice figure of this character out currently (which I will eventually get), because it is still a solid figure (and cute). I suppose the nostalgia is just a bonus at this point, and is perhaps part of the reason why I still desire it even with Mattel's version out. Sorry probably not the best example.

Perhaps another example would be if I were to get (some of) the Primal Rage toys I had as a child. Not all the ones I had back then interest me now to even want to get them again (maybe), but I still am interested in some of them (perhaps because they've always been my favorites even as a kid?), like Diablo and Talon (maybe Armadon too). I mean even the game still interests me now, although a bit more then beyond it being a dinosaur fighting game (like when I was a kid).

[Dilopho]

I totally agree with you on that point, Faelrin. I know exactly what you  mean!

[IrritatorRaji]

Rebor lives up to their name....they bore then re-bore.....

Agreed, Rebor, for me, doesn't really have anything that makes them stand out from everyone else. I mean, they don't seem to have their own style since they copy all their dinosaurs from other franchises and their prices are just.... waaaaaay too high.