Controversial opinions on dinosaur toys

[Stegotyranno420]

The big problem lies within the market demand, the "more detail means better" mindset where buyers look for scutes and spikes instead of what is realistic.
And it's terrible.

soooooo true!

never understood whats so bad about spikes and scutes. I mean speculative lips is as realistic as speculative spikes. but i respect your opinions

[stargatedalek]

I wonder how far the progress with the Zhuchengtyrannus is, I have only seen a concept drawing so far.
My personal issue with the lips is how far the teeth stick out on the new Wilson.
The large scales on the snout however are a huge plus in its favour.



As seen here some of these stick out so far they'd fall out too easily on a living animal.

You can even see on some of them where the curve ends and the teeth become straight, that part should be rooted inside the socket instead of hanging loose.

The big problem lies within the market demand, the "more detail means better" mindset where buyers look for scutes and spikes instead of what is realistic.
And it's terrible.

soooooo true!

never understood whats so bad about spikes and scutes. I mean speculative lips is as realistic as speculative spikes. but i respect your opinions

Lips are not speculative. Every terrestrial animal has them. It's speculative not to include them.

The problem with scutes and spines is that they are almost never handled in realistic ways. Scutes in particular are typically depicted as looking like crocodile scutes, something that preserves in fossils and we can confirm no dinosaur group had. Something like iguana facial "scutes" is possible though it looks nothing like for example the scutes on the Papo Allosaurus. Essentially, armoured scutes (on theropods) are a no-no, not even speculative, but objectively inaccurate, but decorative scutes are fine, if speculative.

The issue with spines (and decorative scutes) is that companies almost never actually give them any sort of genuinely decorative function. Iguanas are very small, so having their spines or scutes be grey or white on a green or black body stands out quite a bit. When you're talking about a massive animal, scutes that are a slightly lighter shade of grey, or spines that are the same colour as the back, are an absolutely ridiculous feature that makes no sense. Dinosaurs have excellent colour vision, if they had any sort of display structures, they would have been all in with bright colours and patterns. Think less antelope, more toucan.

[Stegotyranno420]

@stargatedalek crocodiles don't have true lips. Birds don't have true lips. And these are the only living relatives of dinosaurs. I agree, some dinosaurs would have had lips or partial lips, but those who we dont have any evidence of (which is like all of them, but im not sure, please correct me) probably didnt, or have had speculative lips(im not saying lips were not present, i actually kind of like partial lips.

Although you are right about the spikes and scutes not being handled right. Even though i love my mojo giga, i never though i'd say this but those spikes truly irritate me.

? @Stolpergeist ironically, its one of my favorites

[stargatedalek]

@stargatedalek crocodiles don't have true lips. Birds don't have true lips. And these are the only living relatives of dinosaurs. I agree, some dinosaurs would have had lips or partial lips, but those who we dont have any evidence of (which is like all of them, but im not sure, please correct me) probably didnt, or have had speculative lips(im not saying lips were not present, i actually kind of like partial lips.

Although you are right about the spikes and scutes not being handled right. Even though i love my mojo giga, i never though i'd say this but those spikes truly irritate me.

I said there are no terrestrial animals without lips, crocodiles are not terrestrial animals, and their lack of lips is directly related to them being aquatic. Because they are aquatic their teeth don't dry out and this allows them to remain exposed, and the only benefit to having them exposed lies solely in the specialized armoured nature of crocodilian skulls. The skin is hardened and taut across the entire head, including right up to the base of the teeth.

Birds do not have exposed teeth, and those with short beaks will have soft tissue to cover their mouths like parrots. I suppose yes, they technically don't have lips, but they are inherently not a valid point of reference for exposed teeth either so they aren't relevant.

The next closest living relative to dinosaurs is, depending on who ask, turtles. Turtles have both beaks and lips. After them it's irrelevant as whether the answer is tuataras or mammals, all options remaining have lips.

[Bread]

? @Stolpergeist Yeah, the teeth are rather long, compared to what they should be. Still, does not really bother me too much.

@stargatedalek lips are indeed "speculative" as they are unknown until an actual Tyrannosaurus specimen shows them. There is enough evidence for Tyrannosaurus to have lips, but there is enough to debunk lips.

[stargatedalek]

? @Stolpergeist Yeah, the teeth are rather long, compared to what they should be. Still, does not really bother me too much.

@stargatedalek lips are indeed "speculative" as they are unknown until an actual Tyrannosaurus specimen shows them. There is enough evidence for Tyrannosaurus to have lips, but there is enough to debunk lips.

By that logic giving it eyes is speculative, because the eyes aren't technically preserved, those sockets could have been empty. The odds of that are incomprehensibly small, but it's technically possible.

"Speculative" in this context doesn't mean "not based on literal chunks of preserved rock", it means "deviation on top of what is safely assumed". Giving Tyrannosaurus lips is not speculative, as it's what is most safely assumed for the animal, while exposed teeth would be speculative. Not saying the term isn't highly arbitrary, but it does get used in a quite specific way.

[Bread]

@Bread Same, could be worse, after putting some Apoxie on it will look less awkward to me at least.

I'd love to see you or anyone else attempt that on the new Wilson.

@stargatedalek My bad, I could have used a better word instead of speculative. However, I have to disagree about "most safely assumed." Lips on Tyrannosaurus is debatable and there really is no right or wrong answer until further proof. Points you have mentioned earlier favoring lips of course could be right, but there is also evidence of there being no lips. A specimen in which I find interesting and increases the likely of Tyrannosaurs having no lips is the Daspletosaurus horneri specimen. Again, this specimen is not a Tyrannosaurus rex, but is indeed related to the genus. However, I do support both arguments for lips and no lips on Tyrannosaurus and other Tyrannosaurs.

I am not going to drag this small, slight debate. This is not the thread to be discussing this. Although, yes it was slightly about my controversial opinion of lips/no lips.

[PumperKrickel]

I think all dinosaurs should be given lips, how else could they've kissed???

[Carnoking]

Was there a video where the sculptor of the PNSO figure broke down the work that went into making Wilson including why he didn't give it lips? Or am I misremembering?

[John]

Was there a video where the sculptor of the PNSO figure broke down the work that went into making Wilson including why he didn't give it lips? Or am I misremembering?

Yes,there is.It is on page 149 of the "PNSO dinosaurs" thread,reply #2967.

[suspsy]

Sorry, @Gwangi, I missed this response of yours. Now then.

You're suggesting that the human fascination for extinct animals wouldn't exist without T. rex, and that's mighty bold. No, I don't think so. You're comparing extinct animals that lived in Earth's distant past to make believe pop culture characters. Dinosaurs capture the imagination like nothing else can, with Tyrannosaurus or without. Sure, T. rex is a pop culture icon too, but without it we would still have a number of suitable stand-ins, including other tyrannosaurs. If T. rex, or lions didn't exist, another apex predator would achieve their level of popularity and no one would question it because they would be living in a world without a "better" alternative. You bring up Richard the Lionheart while forgetting Beowulf (the bear wolf). Lions are popular in western society, but in Asia it is indeed the tiger that is more popular. In South America it's the Jaguar. In native North America it was the mountain lion. People work with what they've got.

Well, it is pointless in the end to speculate on what an alternative world without T. rex would be like, same as how it's pointless to speculate on what 2020 would have been like if the pandemic hadn't occurred. What is, is. That said, I really do believe that people's perception and fascination with dinosaurs would have been radically different without the tyrant king. Spinosaurus and Carcharodontosaurus were only known from sketches or small fragments until the 1990s, and Giganotosaurus was only revealed in 1995. Perhaps Acrocanthosaurus would have gotten to be crowned the dinosaur king instead?

PS @suspsy  - I always thought Superman was the "Rex" of DC, no 😉?

I would argue that Brontosaurus is the Superman of dinosaurs. It's a truly beloved and iconic dinosaur, so much so that some paleontologists jumped at the opportunity to bring it back from junior synonym oblivion (and thank goodness they did!). But just as Batman's books, cartoons, movies, and merchandise far outsell Superman's and those of all other DC heroes, Tyrannosaurus rex's popularity and selling potential far exceeds the thunder lizard's and all other dinosaurs'. And while a Justice League movie or cartoon or toy line that only consisted of Batman would be rather boring, a movie or cartoon or toy line that excluded Batman altogether would be much more likely to tank. He's the cornerstone of DC just as Spider-Man is the cornerstone of Marvel and T. rex is the cornerstone of dinosaur toys. REBOR Studio testified to that importance today in another thread:

T-Rex and Velociraptor don't need new toys.

But those two especially T-Rex significantly outsell any other genus, not 2 to 1, not 5 to 1, we are talking about 10-15 to 1, our entire stock of GNG T-Rex were sold out in less than 30 days despite its many flaws. So the truth is just like you guys we are so very sick of T-Rex toys but we have to make at least one new T-Rex a year if we want to keep the brand alive, we got mouths to feed.

[Sarapaurolophus]

I love the Collecta feathered Rexes mostly due to their color. Giving T.Rex stripes on its back is overdone, imo, even though it might be more plausible than the peafowl look. But I just love the stark contrasts of colors and especially the greens they used on the feathered Rex. If you're the "king" you might as well look decadent

[Gwangi]

Well, it is pointless in the end to speculate on what an alternative world without T. rex would be like, same as how it's pointless to speculate on what 2020 would have been like if the pandemic hadn't occurred. What is, is. That said, I really do believe that people's perception and fascination with dinosaurs would have been radically different without the tyrant king. Spinosaurus and Carcharodontosaurus were only known from sketches or small fragments until the 1990s, and Giganotosaurus was only revealed in 1995. Perhaps Acrocanthosaurus would have gotten to be crowned the dinosaur king instead?

Allosaurus was popular for a long time, only outmatched by T. rex as theropods go. I imagine Allosaurus would have retained its popularity for awhile longer had there been no T. rex, and the discovery of larger theropods like Giganotosaurus would have been that much more significant in the absence of T. rex. Lets also not forget about Gorgosaurus (1914) and Albertosaurus (1904) which may have filled the large popular theropod niche in pop culture. Look at sauropods like Brontosaurus/Apatosaurus. Not the largest sauropods by a long shot but because of when they were discovered, before larger sauropods, they have retained their popularity. It doesn't matter how much larger Argentinosaurus is than Brontosaurus, the later will always remain the more popular because it has history on its side, a longer period of exposure. Pointless to speculate perhaps, but a fun thought exercise.

[Crackington]

Don't forget that Megalosaurus was King of the 50s too - the 1850s! Star of the first JP in Crystal Palace!

Re Superman v Batman @suspsy and @stargatedalek - I accept you are both right and Batman is the main draw now. However, hasn't this fluctuated over time? When I was a kid in the 1970s, Superman was huge with those big movies, Marlon Brando, Christopher Reeve, thumping John Williams scores. Batman was just an old TV show to me then, though enjoyable repeats. Maybe he'll come out on top again one day?

Interesting quote by Rebor though, explains a lot.

[dyno77]

For years papo have gotten away with any real criticism ,despite some reviews of their spinosaurus and giganotosaurus,but id say they deserve it because they have been getting lazy in recent years with boring repaints that no one asked for apart from diehard collectors...
Papo has a problem with their dinosaurs and if they dont fix it they will probably slip away just like bullyland and schleich...
The boring and unrealistic poses, releasing the same dinosaurs other companies have released and presenting them as great when they are not accurate at all...
The only thing papo has is good sculptors ,something mojo and schleich dont have...but this insistence on using weird stock images for reference or jurassic park references is a sorry excuse for the line existing...papo from what iv read arent releasing any dinosaurs this year only prehistoric animals ..which in my view is cowardly way out...they know their dinosaurs arent up to standard ....

[JohannesB]

I love the Collecta feathered Rexes mostly due to their color. Giving T.Rex stripes on its back is overdone, imo, even though it might be more plausible than the peafowl look. But I just love the stark contrasts of colors and especially the greens they used on the feathered Rex. If you're the "king" you might as well look decadent

I think you just made me aware of my own subconscious feeling of disgust about myself here: I just keep on painting dinosaurs with stripes on their backs, but I think I keep doing it because I am either  stuck in a rut, or because of of a lack of creativity. I must try harder to come up with more interesting (re)paint schemes for my figures.

[Bread]

This brings me to the carnegie collection which is praised way to much, when alot of there theropods had tripod stances ,were shrink wrapped and boring...sure they had a few good figures ,but total garbage such as the ultra boring 2012 t rex which was the most boring t rex figure of all time from a major company...in my view and alot of other reviews as well..forest rogers was hit and miss with the sculpts and to many of them were shrink wrapped and had skinny tails and lower legs were to thin and weak,it seems to me forest took inspiration from forest rogers who did the same thing with the dinosaurs..but at least now doug watson is a better sculptor than forest rogers and thats for sure..and whoever is on the safari team is far better than the last few years of the carnegie collection sculpting team....

I agree with the Carnegie Collection being over rated. However, I think "total garbage" is a bit harsh to label some of their products.
To each their own opinion, though.

[JohannesB]

My controversial opinion is the fact that I think Collecta is a bit overrated, and their figure designs often look a bit wonky. Sorry.

[JohannesB]

papo are slipping away ,just look how boring and ordinary there 2021 line up is ...the poses they put there dinosaurs in are stupid unrealistic and despite collectas flaws ,they are clearly the best all around company...safari has fine figures ,but they are lacking imagination and alot of there figures arent worth getting excited about...apart from the occasional figure such as camarasaurus or raptors ,most of there figures arent great as they are made out to be...
This brings me to the carnegie collection which is praised way to much, when alot of there theropods had tripod stances ,were shrink wrapped and boring...sure they had a few good figures ,but total garbage such as the ultra boring 2012 t rex which was the most boring t rex figure of all time from a major company...in my view and alot of other reviews as well..forest rogers was hit and miss with the sculpts and to many of them were shrink wrapped and had skinny tails and lower legs were to thin and weak,it seems to me forest took inspiration from forest rogers who did the same thing with the dinosaurs..but at least now doug watson is a better sculptor than forest rogers and thats for sure..and whoever is on the safari team is far better than the last few years of the carnegie collection sculpting team....

My controversial opinion here: Doug Watson is a worse (less refined) sculptor than Forest Rogers.

[Gwangi]

My controversial opinion is the fact that I think Collecta is a bit overrated, and their figure designs often look a bit wonky. Sorry.

I agree. They have enough good stuff for me that I still get excited about their announcements, but I don't actually collect much of them. Some, like the Edaphosaurus for example, are fantastic and must haves for me. The rest are "meh". I prefer Safari and always make them my priority.

The Carnegie Collection was legendary during its run through the 90's, then they got outcompeted. They were definitely declining in the end, much like Papo is now.