Controversial opinions on dinosaur toys

[Stegotyranno420]

Nah, I already know.
I hope you'll get yours sometime soon.

Yeah Plesiosaurus nessy said sometime around autumm

[stargatedalek]

I don't think anyone has done a good Spinosaurus yet, including the upcoming Mesozoo and REBOR ones. All of them aside from the Swimming Safari one and V1 Favorite Kinto have unnaturally thin dorsal structures (I blame the 2014 papers accompanying reconstructions). But that Safari one has a lot more crocodilian influence than I like, and something about the posture of the ankles feels off, while the Favorite V1 Spinosaurus predates the new limb morphology entirely.

Aside from that, many of them are missing the enlarged fourth toe, foot webbing, all sorts of things.

Somehow, the same goes for Microraptor. One of the best understood dinosaurs and yet not one currently accurate figure, and only one (the Carnegie) that was accurate at time of release.

[stargatedalek]

Ah, snap, you're right, I should check if the Mesozoo one has that larger hallux (that one is the first toe, the counting for digits starts inwards), I totally forgot about that.
The Carnegie Microraptor was unfortunately also inaccurate when it came out, it has four fingers on each hand, I have no idea what prompted Rogers to do that.
I like the shimmer on the CollectA one but it screams shrink-wrap and the plumage is very tight and not very natural.
The PNSO one would be neat if it wasn't for the exposed teeth.

It doesn't have four fingers, it has three fingers and the alula that is well preserved in the fossils, something every other Microraptor figure lacks. The black marking on the tip of the alula seemingly threw some people off, but it's definitely an alula.

[Faelrin]

@stargatedalek What about the Beasts of the Mesozoic Microraptor (aside from the fact it is an action figure)? Doesn't that one have the alula? I know it at least gets the tail right based on the one specimen out there, and the coloration give or take, and it has lips as well (I think it is the only one that does?). I know @Sim forwarded a lot of things to David back during the kickstarter and pre-production of it, so if anything I would think it got that right, but honestly it has been a while since I checked it up close, and longer still since I did my review on it so my memory is a bit muddied on this. Maybe I ought to go do that again just to be sure. Honestly though I agree it is unfortunate that despite how much is known about Microraptor, companies still get some of the details incorrect, such as the new PNSO one. Same goes for Archaeopteryx, and of course Spinosaurus as was being discussed earlier. I'm really hoping the new 2021 Safari Ltd one can be the definitive one, when it comes to getting the anatomy down, at least.

[Dinoguy2]

Ah, snap, you're right, I should check if the Mesozoo one has that larger hallux (that one is the first toe, the counting for digits starts inwards), I totally forgot about that.
The Carnegie Microraptor was unfortunately also inaccurate when it came out, it has four fingers on each hand, I have no idea what prompted Rogers to do that.
I like the shimmer on the CollectA one but it screams shrink-wrap and the plumage is very tight and not very natural.
The PNSO one would be neat if it wasn't for the exposed teeth.

The BOTM Microraptor is currently the best representation. It's a little too skinny and the feathers lack volume, but it's an action figure so the articulation limits its accuracy in that way. It has correct hands at least, unlike all the main BotM dromaeosaurs.

The Safari Microraptor is probably closest static figure to being accurate. It lacks feathered fingers and an alula but is otherwise good and has accurate feather volume. It lacks iridescence but that seems more of a stylistic thing since Safari figures usually have matte paint, even modern birds that would have glossy or iridescent feathers. If Safari simply repainted their Microraptor to make the fingers black and add a few touches of dark blue or iridescent looking paint here and there, it would be pretty definitive. (Though I'm not a fan of the pose).

CollectA is a close third. The feathers are a little lacking in volume and once again, same issues with the finger feathers.

PNSO comes in fourth. No finger feathers or alula, and it also has the crest that was debunked several years ago.

Microraptor is like the new Archaeopteryx. It seems like the more perfectly known a fossil species is, the harder time artists have of getting it right.

[Sim]

I still think the Wild Safari Microraptor has the alula.

[Gothmog the Baryonyx]

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.

Baryonyx is the exception and is both fascinating in it's own way and special to me.
I don't think saying Hadrosaurs are boring is controversial, in most media they are nothing but meat sacks and instantly collapse and die the second a tiny theropod barely touches them.  My love for Hadrosaurs is partially because of that massive misunderstanding, I also find their stance interesting, their evolution including their teeth and bills and of course the many crests. Beautiful and powerful animals.

Regarding Microraptor  I have to say that I agree that there isn't a single Microraptor which is good enough despite several great companies attempting it and the fossil being so well known. Baffling.

[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.

Baryonyx is the exception and is both fascinating in it's own way and special to me.
I don't think saying Hadrosaurs are boring is controversial, in most media they are nothing but meat sacks and instantly collapse and die the second a tiny theropod barely touches them.  My love for Hadrosaurs is partially because of that massive misunderstanding, I also find their stance interesting, their evolution including their teeth and bills and of course the many crests. Beautiful and powerful animals.

I understand where you are coming from, that gets annoying too, but even a torvosaurus can finish a shatungosaurus

I have to disagree, theropod diversity and evolution of the exact same features are much more interesting(my opinion)

[Shonisaurus]

I don't know if it is a controversial opinion on dinosaurs or not but I like the brands of dinosaurs that try or make precise prehistoric animals like Eofauna, Collecta, Safari, PNSO, Vitae or Itoy's paracetherium. I honestly find them more interesting than movie monsters (JW or JP).

[MLMjp]

Deleted.

[Stegotyranno420]

I don't know if it is a controversial opinion on dinosaurs or not but I like the brands of dinosaurs that try or make precise prehistoric animals like Eofauna, Collecta, Safari, PNSO, Vitae or Itoy's paracetherium. I honestly find them more interesting than movie monsters (JW or JP).

I agree with you Shonisaurus, but I have a problem describing even the JP dinosaurs as movie monsters. Here's why, just hear me out.

Jp made its dinosaurs in this certain style because they thought it was accurate for the time and were trying to be as right as possible. They were hyper-aggressive to show their "warm-bloodedness". to show how active and powerful they can be. The later movies are severely outdated, but are so, so they can keep the canon style. It'd be weird seeing all the dinosaur characters entirely different, so they just stuck with the designs of the originals. So what started out as a way to get people to learn dinosaurs the right way and not believe the sluggish giant kangaroo lizards and to belive  powerful crocodile birds, eventually became what it sought to destroy, a stereotype of dinosaurs everyone scoffs at

[Shonisaurus]

I suppose that JP also made dinosaurs that were genetically modified by scientists after extracting their DNA, that is one of the causes that these dinosaurs some of them have such a strange experience as you mention apart that these dinosaurs were made at the time based on the last scientific knowledge.

[Stegotyranno420]

My unpopular opinion is againts your unpopular opinions.

I find stupid to "reject", calling boring/uninteresting, or not caring about a group of (non avian/ extinct) dinosaurs, whether they are theropods, hadrosaurs, ceratopsians, sauropods... All dinosaurs groups are interesting in some way and deserve attention.

Well atleast i dont fantasize about hadrosaurs(you know @Takama 's current signature says something like" a true dinosaur fan loves them not for what he wants them to be, but what they are), i try to find the good in them. Like i think lambeosaurus is cool. But lots of them are, for lack of better words, bland and boring and plain. Maiasaura seemed interesting at first, but that just may had been the norm of hadrosaurs, to take care of children in advanced techniques.

[Gothmog the Baryonyx]

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.

Baryonyx is the exception and is both fascinating in it's own way and special to me.
I don't think saying Hadrosaurs are boring is controversial, in most media they are nothing but meat sacks and instantly collapse and die the second a tiny theropod barely touches them.  My love for Hadrosaurs is partially because of that massive misunderstanding, I also find their stance interesting, their evolution including their teeth and bills and of course the many crests. Beautiful and powerful animals.

I understand where you are coming from, that gets annoying too, but even a torvosaurus can finish a shatungosaurus

I have to disagree, theropod diversity and evolution of the exact same features are much more interesting(my opinion)

a Torvosaurus would stand no chance against a Shantungosuarus, or many of the smaller Hadrosaurs even, it was not built to take on Hadrosaurs and it certainly couldn't take one several times it's own size. And this is exactly the sort of thing I am talking about.

[Stegotyranno420]

If torvosaurus along with contemporaries like saurophaganax were bulit to take on the extremley large sauropods, sometimes on solo(altough these sauropods were often the size of shatungosaurus but much more bulit)
Look, i dont want to have a flame war or anything, you seem like a nice guy and i don't want to make more enemies on the internet, i just have a opposing view on a topic.

[stargatedalek]

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.

Baryonyx is the exception and is both fascinating in it's own way and special to me.
I don't think saying Hadrosaurs are boring is controversial, in most media they are nothing but meat sacks and instantly collapse and die the second a tiny theropod barely touches them.  My love for Hadrosaurs is partially because of that massive misunderstanding, I also find their stance interesting, their evolution including their teeth and bills and of course the many crests. Beautiful and powerful animals.

I understand where you are coming from, that gets annoying too, but even a torvosaurus can finish a shatungosaurus

I have to disagree, theropod diversity and evolution of the exact same features are much more interesting(my opinion)

Shantungosaurus was a massive animal, it would easily have crushed Torvosaurus, an animal at best pushing a quarter of its size, and which shows no adaptations to hunting animals larger than itself. You're welcome to prefer whichever, but that claim is simply absurd.

I still think the Wild Safari Microraptor has the alula.

If it has an alula than it's placed on an incorrect part of the wing, it should extend from and along the length of the leading finger, and should compress along the length when not extended. Simply adding an extra clump of feathers anywhere on the front edge of the wing isn't accurate, nor is folding the alula back behind the fingers so they can be exposed.

I don't know if it is a controversial opinion on dinosaurs or not but I like the brands of dinosaurs that try or make precise prehistoric animals like Eofauna, Collecta, Safari, PNSO, Vitae or Itoy's paracetherium. I honestly find them more interesting than movie monsters (JW or JP).

I agree with you Shonisaurus, but I have a problem describing even the JP dinosaurs as movie monsters. Here's why, just hear me out.

Jp made its dinosaurs in this certain style because they thought it was accurate for the time and were trying to be as right as possible. They were hyper-aggressive to show their "warm-bloodedness". to show how active and powerful they can be. The later movies are severely outdated, but are so, so they can keep the canon style. It'd be weird seeing all the dinosaur characters entirely different, so they just stuck with the designs of the originals. So what started out as a way to get people to learn dinosaurs the right way and not believe the sluggish giant kangaroo lizards and to belive  powerful crocodile birds, eventually became what it sought to destroy, a stereotype of dinosaurs everyone scoffs at

Jurassic Park made its dinosaurs the way it did because they wanted the designs to be recognizable, entertaining, and copyrightable. That last part ultimately didn't go the way they hoped though. I don't disagree about maintaining the designs, but many of them were decidedly not accurate for their time, and all the main ones were given gimmicks to their appearance with the intent of making them unique.

If torvosaurus along with contemporaries like saurophaganax were bulit to take on the extremley large sauropods, sometimes on solo(altough these sauropods were often the size of shatungosaurus but much more bulit)
Look, i dont want to have a flame war or anything, you seem like a nice guy and i don't want to make more enemies on the internet, i just have a opposing view on a topic.

They weren't hunting sauropods.

[Flaffy]

I find it hard to believe a 3 ton theropod would have a fun time taking on a 12 ton wall of flesh.

[Stegotyranno420]

I find it hard to believe a 3 ton theropod would have a fun time taking on a 12 ton wall of flesh.

This is  exacly what im talking about. So many people over estimate animals like ornithopods, ankylosaurs, and ceratopsians, but they underestimate dinosaurs like megalosaurs and stegosaurs.
Look, like i said before, i dont want to start a fight, i just believe something different based on my own expierences. Im not saying you are wrong, im trying to say im right. I dont mean to be rude or anything. This is gonna turn into a bash-over-bash of evidence and scientific assumption. And this is a place where we dont do that. I dont accept im wrong, but im not saying your stupid. I just want this to be over before it gets ugly

[Bread]

Seeing these previous posts, I just know everyone is entitled to their own opinion, despite someone disagreeing with you. However, remember you can not spit out false information.
Anyways.....
Some more controversial opinions of mine:
1) Not a fan of CollectA. Only a few figures really speak to me, for example their new Carnotaurus.
2) Not a fan of Eofauna either. Yep, I said it and no regrets. I am waiting to see what else they release, but I thought their Giganotosaurus was alright.

I figured to add another post rather than edit my previous post.

[Gothmog the Baryonyx]

I find it hard to believe a 3 ton theropod would have a fun time taking on a 12 ton wall of flesh.

This is  exacly what im talking about. So many people over estimate animals like ornithopods, ankylosaurs, and ceratopsians, but they underestimate dinosaurs like megalosaurs and stegosaurs.
Look, like i said before, i dont want to start a fight, i just believe something different based on my own expierences. Im not saying you are wrong, im trying to say im right. I dont mean to be rude or anything. This is gonna turn into a bash-over-bash of evidence and scientific assumption. And this is a place where we dont do that. I dont accept im wrong, but im not saying your stupid. I just want this to be over before it gets ugly

aside from Iguanodon I have never seen anyone ever overestimate an Ornithopod, its always the reverse. And Megalosaurs are often overestimated, especially Spinosaurus.
And I'm sorry but your claim regarding Torvosaurus is absurd.