Controversial opinions on dinosaur toys

[Patrx]

I enjoy BOTM, but so far it's kind of a novelty. None of the BOTM raptor figures I have stands in a way that looks particularly dynamic or convincing, even with the bases and support rods. They also, due to the necessities of articulation, have the somewhat dated look of feathers slapped a bit haphazardly onto a formerly scaled animal. It's difficult to truly get the proper "bird-like" feathering on a dinosaur while still making it move like an action figure.

Agreed entirely! I picked up one, the Atrociraptor, because the whole endeavour is cool and ambitious. I also preordered the subadult Triceratops because I am a sap for the genus and because my gosh, look at those colours, and I'm hoping the four legs make it easier to pose naturally. I'm glad the BOTM line is out there, because they're really neat, but broadly speaking, they aren't my jam.

Is liking the CollectA Dimetrodon more than Safari's a controversial opinion?

Maybe, but the CollectA is very good, in my opinion I did use a bit of putty to patch up the seam on the articulated jaw for my own copy, though.

[suspsy]

I much prefer the CollectA Dimetrodon over the Safari version. The spikier sail with holes in it, the stiffened tail, and the articulated jaw make it more dynamic. The Safari one has a better colour scheme, though.

I only own the BotM Saurornitholestes; I bought it as a novelty and have no desire for any other raptors. I'm also only planning to get the Spiclypeus from the ceratopsian series. And while I'm absolutely getting the 1/35 Tyrannosaurus rex, I'm not sure if I'll bother with any of the other tyrannosaurs. Possibly one of the tyrannosauroids if any.

[Dinoguy2]

Also yeah, I prefer figurines over action figures too as the seams bother me but am dating someone who collects BOTM so I guess it's balanced out.
Seamless articulation as in this dog or the neck of the Carnegie Tanystropheus is however the absolute best but I can imagine it to be quite pricey when it is full body articulation.

Seamless articulated figures look great until the rubber starts to crack. I'm very careful with my Carnegie tanystropheuses too because I've heard a lot of issues with the wire snapping as it ages. Figures with a rubber outer shell and internal joints seem to be the worst. There's a line of Star Wars toys like this and apparently the rubber has cracked on some right out of the box. I have a McFarlane Headless Horseman from 1999 that I basically never posed after removing it from the box and only put on display around Halloween and the "pants" are nearly disintegrated. Give me pre-posed static figures any time.

I much prefer the CollectA Dimetrodon over the Safari version. The spikier sail with holes in it, the stiffened tail, and the articulated jaw make it more dynamic. The Safari one has a better colour scheme, though.

I only own the BotM Saurornitholestes; I bought it as a novelty and have no desire for any other raptors. I'm also only planning to get the Spiclypeus from the ceratopsian series. And while I'm absolutely getting the 1/35 Tyrannosaurus rex, I'm not sure if I'll bother with any of the other tyrannosaurs. Possibly one of the tyrannosauroids if any.

Same. I have my 1 raptor which I have to say is pretty "meh". I ordered a Monoclonius more out of a desire to have a modern DinoRiders toy than anything else. I'll likely pass on the tyrannosaurs since I already have a theropod and I don't notice any real improvements over the issues I have with the raptor. Unless their Dryptosaurus looks really cool.

[Shane]

Seamless articulated figures look great until the rubber starts to crack. I'm very careful with my Carnegie tanystropheuses too because I've heard a lot of issues with the wire snapping as it ages. Figures with a rubber outer shell and internal joints seem to be the worst. There's a line of Star Wars toys like this and apparently the rubber has cracked on some right out of the box. I have a McFarlane Headless Horseman from 1999 that I basically never posed after removing it from the box and only put on display around Halloween and the "pants" are nearly disintegrated. Give me pre-posed static figures any time.

Absolutely this. People don't always take into account that entirely seamless figures, which tend to be VERY expensive, are much more "here for a good time" and not "here for a long time". You're paying a huge premium for a figure that will look nice for a few years before cracking, tearing, or falling apart in some way.

I know REBOR has said their Titanoboa is made of some kind of new material but it would not be at all surprising if these started to tear within the next 5 years or so.

[Shonisaurus]

Hopefully nothing bad happens to my Rebor titanoboa, but I am a classic collector who prefers figures of dinosaurs and other prehistoric animals to be without any joints. This is one of my reasons why I love Safari models for example.

The articulated figures apart from that their jaws are disjointed and let alone their articulated parts. I honestly prefer lifelong figures like dinosaurs and prehistoric animals without articulation and if it can be high quality and seamless and made of  PVC Rotocast.

[Halichoeres]

Dinosaur non action figure toys are dead. They have no charm nowadays. After the Panini prehistoric animals and K&M minis, they've mostly been not nice to look at and not fun to play with. The new mattel jurasic line is nicely articulated with some obscure species being shown off and the BOTM action figures are superb but all non action figure dinosaurs have lost their cute collectable charm. Like what even is schleich doing nowadays? Their stuff is so so bad.

I believe the word you're struggling with is "figurine".

Also, you dislike modern dinosaur figurines because they don't look like cheap dollar store gashapon toys? Um...that's definitely...a take.

Yes yes yes!!!!! K&M minis are for me, as close to perfection as we have gotten, if only a line exactly like it but accurate was released...

@Reuben03 they're not completely accurate, but maybe you'd find Eikoh to your liking? http://dinotoyblog.com/forum/index.php?topic=8093.0

[Shonisaurus]

Honestly, this is going to sound like a very big insult in the DTF but I like prehistoric mammals and dinosaurs alike and I can say the same about amphibians, insects, plants, prehistoric terrestrial reptiles, marine reptiles, pterosaurs, extinct birds. Dinosaurs are beautiful, but honestly there are many prehistoric animals from all ages that have the same degree of genius as dinosaurs.

[Loon]

Honestly, this is going to sound like a very big insult in the DTF but I like prehistoric mammals and dinosaurs alike and I can say the same about amphibians, insects, plants, prehistoric terrestrial reptiles, marine reptiles, pterosaurs, extinct birds. Dinosaurs are beautiful, but honestly there are many prehistoric animals from all ages that have the same degree of genius as dinosaurs.

I highly doubt this would be controversial outside of, like, Rebor and Nanmu threads. I honestly am more excited for non-dinosaurs these days.

[Gothmog the Baryonyx]

Probably not that controversial here, but Hadrosaurs are vastly more interesting than Tyrannosaurs, Allosaurs, Megalosaurs and most Ceratosaurs.

[Loon]

Probably not that controversial here, but Hadrosaurs are vastly more interesting than Tyrannosaurs, Allosaurs, Megalosaurs and most Ceratosaurs.

^This

[John]

Probably not that controversial here, but Hadrosaurs are vastly more interesting than Tyrannosaurs, Allosaurs, Megalosaurs and most Ceratosaurs.

Tyrannosaurs liked hadrosaurs too.They thought they tasted really good!

In all honesty though,I find both hadrosaurs and all the theropod families mentioned equally interesting.I am just as exited about PNSO's new Lambeosaurus as I would be for a Daspletosaurus.

[Bread]

Saw this thread, wanted to say a few of my opinions on dinosaur toys.
-Tyrannosaurus rex is indeed overrated and becoming boring to acquire now. However, the feathered Tyrannosaurus figures have definitely been a favorite of mine. I am a sucker for feathering Therapods.
- I do not like Sauropods. There I said it. Too big for me to collect. I may acquire one down the road but for now, I think it would have to be an amazing/outstanding figure of a sauropod for me to actually consider it.
- Ceratopsians are overrated. I like them, but they are becoming massed produced. I should clarify that species like Triceratops, Styracosaurus, Nasutoceratops, etc. need to be on a pause, and more uncommon species need to have some light shed on them.
- A bad color scheme does not ruin a figure.
- Papo is overrated. I am getting sick of JP clones, hypocritical statement because I do like some Rebor products.... 
- I am not a fan of battat. They look nice, but the material ruins it for me.

Not sure if this is a controversial opinion, but...
- I like bases. I like dynamic poses, but I also like the sort of basic poses in order for a figure to stand. However if a base improves the pose and ability to stand, then yes give it a base!

[Sim]

Probably not that controversial here, but Hadrosaurs are vastly more interesting than Tyrannosaurs, Allosaurs, Megalosaurs and most Ceratosaurs.

Baryonyx is a megalosaur!  Anyway, I'm going to have to disagree with you here with my controversial opinion: I don't get the popularity of hadrosaurs.  I find them so boring.

[Jose S.M.]

I guess this is slightly controversial, since I've seen a lot of "this group is boring, this genus is overrated". I don't find any animal boring or tiresome, to me all groups are interesting and I want representation of them. Same for extant animals. Of course I get there's overrepresentation and people who gets bored of that have their rights to do so, I just can say myself that X group is boring, their all amazing in their own rights.
I guess that's the zoologist in my coming out, specially since in my country we don't have lots of charismatic fauna, maybe like 4 big well known species (not counting marine life since we are visited by lots of cetaceans) but on land we have more smallish "humble" species. Our mammalian fauna (which tends to be the most attractive for general public) is like 90% rodents and bats. So I guess that might explain a bit why no animal is boring to me, even when they are out of my study area.

[Bread]

I guess this is slightly controversial, since I've seen a lot of "this group is boring, this genus is overrated". I don't find any animal boring or tiresome, to me all groups are interesting and I want representation of them. Same for extant animals. Of course I get there's overrepresentation and people who gets bored of that have their rights to do so, I just can say myself that X group is boring, their all amazing in their own rights.
I guess that's the zoologist in my coming out, specially since in my country we don't have lots of charismatic fauna, maybe like 4 big well known species (not counting marine life since we are visited by lots of cetaceans) but on land we have more smallish "humble" species. Our mammalian fauna (which tends to be the most attractive for general public) is like 90% rodents and bats. So I guess that might explain a bit why no animal is boring to me, even when they are out of my study area.

I completely agree with your point. I know I do not speak for others, but I assume most may be saying a certain species is rather boring because it is an over produced species. I saw a lot of people, including myself, saying Tyrannosaurus is boring. It is probably one of the most common dinosaur toys/models/figures in the market, which means almost every major dinosaur toy company has made one. I am hypocritical myself, I think acquiring Tyrannosaurus has gotten boring, however I may purchase the PNSO Tyrannosaurus soon. This is just one example and explaination of what I think some people may be using the term "boring" for. Again, I do not speak for others and this is only an assumption.

This is separate from what I stated above, controversial opinion: I instantly dislike a figure that forces the tail to touch a surface in order to stand.

[Faelrin]

I definitely share the sentiment I'm seeing here about being interested in all type of animals, extinct or extant. If only one could see how expansive my collection wishlist's currently are, spanning from the Ediacaran to now, based not only on currently available genera and/or species, but also a plethora that have yet to be made. Of course of those I definitely have favorites, many introduced through the likes of pop culture (dinosaurs aside, but things like Anomalocaris), such as documentaries and films, and some from books I read as a child (such as Arandaspis), but even then, it's still quite a many. I mean I could probably name twenty animals from each period, minimum, that interest me, and it grows all the time based on new discoveries or just from browsing and learning about what's been discovered so far. The only time I don't tend to find something interesting is usually when the life appearance is way too incomplete, such as when a single bone is discovered, though I suppose there have been exceptions (particularly if it got a name I'm drawn too, or a nice paleoart reconstruction, even if highly speculative).

[Stegotyranno420]

Probably not that controversial here, but Hadrosaurs are vastly more interesting than Tyrannosaurs, Allosaurs, Megalosaurs and most Ceratosaurs.

Baryonyx is a megalosaur!  Anyway, I'm going to have to disagree with you here with my controversial opinion: I don't get the popularity of hadrosaurs.  I find them so boring.

SO TRUE. Ditto

[Reuben03]

Dinosaur non action figure toys are dead. They have no charm nowadays. After the Panini prehistoric animals and K&M minis, they've mostly been not nice to look at and not fun to play with. The new mattel jurasic line is nicely articulated with some obscure species being shown off and the BOTM action figures are superb but all non action figure dinosaurs have lost their cute collectable charm. Like what even is schleich doing nowadays? Their stuff is so so bad.

I believe the word you're struggling with is "figurine".

Also, you dislike modern dinosaur figurines because they don't look like cheap dollar store gashapon toys? Um...that's definitely...a take.

Yes yes yes!!!!! K&M minis are for me, as close to perfection as we have gotten, if only a line exactly like it but accurate was released...

@Reuben03 they're not completely accurate, but maybe you'd find Eikoh to your liking? http://dinotoyblog.com/forum/index.php?topic=8093.0

Ah yes! Thanks for bringing those back to my attention, their 2017 so called "Archaeopteryx" would make a half decent dromaeosaurid hunched over her nest or a carcass perhaps, for a diorama or something. Also i found something you might like as a fish enthusiast, I'll send it to you when i can.

[Halichoeres]

Let me be clear. Even though I find these terms annoying as sin, go ahead and say them. It's not like they're slurs or anything. They just annoy me personally, so does calling figures "pieces", but that's a take for another day.

Ooh, this is a spicy take. I guess they make sense as 'pieces' to me for two reasons. Very often they're pieces of art, and even when they're not I worked in retail for so many years that all merchandise comes in units of 'pieces' in my mind.

[Loon]

@Halichoeres

After reading your post, I can appreciate the mindset a bit more. I do agree that all these toys are art (even Rebor, as much as it pains me to say it); unfortunately, I often see the usage of "piece" in opposition to this universality. In certain parts of the internet, particularly certain "dinosaur model collecting" groups on Facebook, "piece" comes off as weirdly snobbish and elitist(not to sound like Alex Jones). Only figures by Nanmu are Rebor or ever called pieces, but I guess that's the bread and butter of the aforementioned community.

It's this weird non-binary that I often see brought up where collectors of these high end figures claim superiority because their figures are more "detailed", whatever the hell that means these days, and thus have artistic merit unlike those peasant toys from Safari.