Controversial opinions on dinosaur toys

[SidB]

Agreed. I like the range of options and choices available that artistic interpretation allows and even promotes. That doesn't necessarily dismiss the quest for the "definitive" figure either.

[Bread]

@SRF exactly, the only issue in which I see is apparent with PNSO models is the oversized scales, which in my opinion are not that bad in person, but again I understand the complaints others have. The whole lips or no lips is controversial and has not been 100% proven so in my opinion it is generally up to the companies whether they will include lips or not, as well as the any other controversial display to be included on the figure, such as feathers or no feathers (when I say this I mean for Wilson and the Qianzhousaurus). I completely agree with what you stated, even better worded it then I ever could, so thank you.

[Gothmog the Baryonyx]

Even without lips though, the teeth shouldn't be falling out of their jaws. Other than that, I wouldn't disagree with you

[Dinoguy2]

My controversial take, speaking of Baryonyx, is that the Invicta is still the best ever made. The pose is slightly out of date (just slightly- the hands aren't even pronated, and it would shock me if this animal couldn't at least occasionally adopt this pose. It had to get up from the ground sometimes...), but the girth of the animal and realistic looking musculature make it the one that comes closest to feeling realistic for me. 

For some reason models of theropods seem to get more criticism than other species. I don't really understand why that is actually.

Speaking strictly of PNSO, that's because the theropods are the only ones that are blatantly inaccurate  PNSO's ornithischians are close to perfect.

[Bread]

Even without lips though, the teeth shouldn't be falling out of their jaws. Other than that, I wouldn't disagree with you

True, forgot about that issue, other than that and the over size scales I don't think Wilson deserves as much criticism, but everyone has their own opinions. For now, I won't be needing any Tyrannosaurus figure any time soon, maybe BOTM's but that won't be for a while...

[SRF]

My controversial take, speaking of Baryonyx, is that the Invicta is still the best ever made. The pose is slightly out of date (just slightly- the hands aren't even pronated, and it would shock me if this animal couldn't at least occasionally adopt this pose. It had to get up from the ground sometimes...), but the girth of the animal and realistic looking musculature make it the one that comes closest to feeling realistic for me. 

For some reason models of theropods seem to get more criticism than other species. I don't really understand why that is actually.

Speaking strictly of PNSO, that's because the theropods are the only ones that are blatantly inaccurate  PNSO's ornithischians are close to perfect.

I wouldn't say they are blatantly inaccurate. I think that's a bit harsh even.

There is no model of Tyrannosaurus with more "accurate" proportions, according to the knowledge we have of this animal, than the PNSO one. And If I look at these models from a distance of just 1 meter, the "large" scales are barely noticable. Not even on the Carnotaurus, let alone the Tyrannosaurus. And if you compare te Qhianzousaurus with the Safari one, there really isn't any question which one is the more appealing model.

There will always be debate on what's accurate or not. But some aspects of these figures are very well done, both in terms of accuracy and aesthetics. Much better than what we've had in the distant past if you ask me.

Like I said before, there's nothing wrong with appreciating them for what they are: interpretations of what these animals could have looked like. 

[stargatedalek]

Like I said before, there's nothing wrong with appreciating them for what they are: interpretations of what these animals could have looked like.

There is nothing wrong with appreciating them for what they are, the problem is that they aren't interpretations of what these animals could have looked like. It doesn't matter how speculative you go, there is evidence actively disproving these giant scales, just as there is evidence actively disproving the way they placed their theropods teeth (they are hanging out of the jaw by their roots making them far longer than they really were on all of the PNSO theropods [sans Carno?]).

Feel free to appreciate them as darn cool looking models, because they are, but statements like this are the exact reason we're so harsh on them. Because their "coolness" combined with being marketed as serious interpretations is colouring peoples perspectives on what's realistically plausible.


I'm gonna have to concur on the Invicta Baryonyx too.

[Sim]

And if you compare te Qhianzousaurus with the Safari one, there really isn't any question which one is the more appealing model.

You're right, it's the Safari one.

[stargatedalek]

And if you compare te Qhianzousaurus with the Safari one, there really isn't any question which one is the more appealing model.

You're right, it's the Safari one.

As someone who will normally prioritize larger figures to the point of even going with JP offerings over more serious efforts, yes, absolutely hands down the Safari. Even after accuracy the Safari has a much more natural and "flowing" movement to its pose.

[SRF]

Like I said before, there's nothing wrong with appreciating them for what they are: interpretations of what these animals could have looked like.

There is nothing wrong with appreciating them for what they are, the problem is that they aren't interpretations of what these animals could have looked like. It doesn't matter how speculative you go, there is evidence actively disproving these giant scales, just as there is evidence actively disproving the way they placed their theropods teeth (they are hanging out of the jaw by their roots making them far longer than they really were on all of the PNSO theropods [sans Carno?]).

Feel free to appreciate them as darn cool looking models, because they are, but statements like this are the exact reason we're so harsh on them. Because their "coolness" combined with being marketed as serious interpretations is colouring peoples perspectives on what's realistically plausible.


I'm gonna have to concur on the Invicta Baryonyx too.

The PNSO Rex is literally the result of a 3D scan of an actual T. Rex skeleton, which after that got all the muscles and soft tissue added to it. How is that not a serious interpretation of the actual animal?

Sure, they could or even should have corrected the teeth. But if that is a very minor issue if you compare it to other figures.

[stargatedalek]

Like I said before, there's nothing wrong with appreciating them for what they are: interpretations of what these animals could have looked like.

There is nothing wrong with appreciating them for what they are, the problem is that they aren't interpretations of what these animals could have looked like. It doesn't matter how speculative you go, there is evidence actively disproving these giant scales, just as there is evidence actively disproving the way they placed their theropods teeth (they are hanging out of the jaw by their roots making them far longer than they really were on all of the PNSO theropods [sans Carno?]).

Feel free to appreciate them as darn cool looking models, because they are, but statements like this are the exact reason we're so harsh on them. Because their "coolness" combined with being marketed as serious interpretations is colouring peoples perspectives on what's realistically plausible.


I'm gonna have to concur on the Invicta Baryonyx too.

The PNSO Rex is literally the result of a 3D scan of an actual T. Rex skeleton, which after that got all the muscles and soft tissue added to it. How is that not a serious interpretation of the actual animal?

Sure, they could or even should have corrected the teeth. But if that is a very minor issue if you compare it to other figures.

How is something we've known for decades being ignored a "very minor issue"? They even talked in length about how the length and placement of the teeth was something they considered seriously and about how that was how they decided to make the animals lip-less.

Clearly this is a fundamental misunderstanding of a very well understood part of the animals anatomy, and it has had a snowballing impact on the reconstructions overall.

Or, frankly, I think most likely a deliberate misinterpretation in order to justify the stylization they wanted to go with.

[SRF]

Like I said before, there's nothing wrong with appreciating them for what they are: interpretations of what these animals could have looked like.

There is nothing wrong with appreciating them for what they are, the problem is that they aren't interpretations of what these animals could have looked like. It doesn't matter how speculative you go, there is evidence actively disproving these giant scales, just as there is evidence actively disproving the way they placed their theropods teeth (they are hanging out of the jaw by their roots making them far longer than they really were on all of the PNSO theropods [sans Carno?]).

Feel free to appreciate them as darn cool looking models, because they are, but statements like this are the exact reason we're so harsh on them. Because their "coolness" combined with being marketed as serious interpretations is colouring peoples perspectives on what's realistically plausible.


I'm gonna have to concur on the Invicta Baryonyx too.

The PNSO Rex is literally the result of a 3D scan of an actual T. Rex skeleton, which after that got all the muscles and soft tissue added to it. How is that not a serious interpretation of the actual animal?

Sure, they could or even should have corrected the teeth. But if that is a very minor issue if you compare it to other figures.

How is something we've known for decades being ignored a "very minor issue"? They even talked in length about how the length and placement of the teeth was something they considered seriously and about how that was how they decided to make the animals lip-less.

Clearly this is a fundamental misunderstanding of a very well understood part of the animals anatomy, and it has had a snowballing impact on the reconstructions overall.

Or, frankly, I think most likely a deliberate misinterpretation in order to justify the stylization they wanted to go with.

The choice to not include lips is explained by Zhao Chuang in that video (which is now available with English subtitled btw) but he doesn't discuss the position of the teeth as far as I know.

If they had corrected the position of the teeth in the upper jaw, those teeth on the model would only be a few millimeters shorter. My controversial opinion (...) is that those few millimeters shouldn't be an issue.

[stargatedalek]

Like I said before, there's nothing wrong with appreciating them for what they are: interpretations of what these animals could have looked like.

There is nothing wrong with appreciating them for what they are, the problem is that they aren't interpretations of what these animals could have looked like. It doesn't matter how speculative you go, there is evidence actively disproving these giant scales, just as there is evidence actively disproving the way they placed their theropods teeth (they are hanging out of the jaw by their roots making them far longer than they really were on all of the PNSO theropods [sans Carno?]).

Feel free to appreciate them as darn cool looking models, because they are, but statements like this are the exact reason we're so harsh on them. Because their "coolness" combined with being marketed as serious interpretations is colouring peoples perspectives on what's realistically plausible.


I'm gonna have to concur on the Invicta Baryonyx too.

The PNSO Rex is literally the result of a 3D scan of an actual T. Rex skeleton, which after that got all the muscles and soft tissue added to it. How is that not a serious interpretation of the actual animal?

Sure, they could or even should have corrected the teeth. But if that is a very minor issue if you compare it to other figures.

How is something we've known for decades being ignored a "very minor issue"? They even talked in length about how the length and placement of the teeth was something they considered seriously and about how that was how they decided to make the animals lip-less.

Clearly this is a fundamental misunderstanding of a very well understood part of the animals anatomy, and it has had a snowballing impact on the reconstructions overall.

Or, frankly, I think most likely a deliberate misinterpretation in order to justify the stylization they wanted to go with.

The choice to not include lips is explained by Zhao Chuang in that video (which is now available with English subtitled btw) but he doesn't discuss the position of the teeth as far as I know.

If they had corrected the position of the teeth in the upper jaw, those teeth on the model would only be a few millimeters shorter. My controversial opinion (...) is that those few millimeters shouldn't be an issue.

"Explained" by moving the models jaw around and saying "Look if it had lips the teeth would damage them!" meanwhile the models teeth are incorrectly sized...

On a model scaled that small a few millimetres is a big deal.

There is a difference between being speculative, even if the only reason is "it looks cool", and actively conflicting with known science. I guess my "controversial opinion" is that half-**ing a reconstruction and going only as accurate as they feel they need or want to, then ignoring known science and exaggerating details for "coolness" anyway is about the worst possible thing a reconstruction can do.

If you're going to make a cool dinosaur sculpt make a cool dinosaur sculpt, don't make an 80% accurate dinosaur sculpt and then deliberately ignore details you don't like while still claiming it as a serious interpretation. And it also bothers me a lot to see people who know better enabling this stuff with "Well we don't know exactly what every dinosaur looked like" as if that matters when there are specific things we do know and those are being done wrong.

[Bread]

@SRF no point in arguing. While I see a few extra millimeter long teeth as nothing too be upset about, others will.
Some desire 100% perfection or scientifically accurate, as others do not mind some incorrections.

I believe the "half***ing" statement is a bit harsh. I don't believe the company does it on purpose, if anything it is the artist's interpretation, which in my opinion is perfectly fine.

Regardless of such arguments made about scale size, lack of lips, and elongated teeth, Wilson is probably the most up-to-date Tyrannosaurus on the market (figure wise, not statue).

[stargatedalek]

I don't speak solely in regards to PNSO's recent theropods, the sentiment is more generalized and this is a far less extreme example than some others.

The Papo Quetzalcoatlus, Therizinosaurus, and (Limited) Spinosaurus are a better example of what I mean. Where they are so close, but very deliberately fall short of being accurate just to "make them cooler". Like, if you're going to make them cool and stylized just go all the way...

[Loon]

Thanks to the mobile site's weird new setup, you can't see the thread title above each post anymore. I thought I'd clicked on the CollectA thread, and I was like "why's everyone talking about PNSO?"

But, to somewhat add to the conversation, I gotta say, I really don't get the huge amount of hype for PNSO. I own quite a few of their figures and really like them, but I would never feel right calling them the best company out their. Not that such a thing can really exist, but that's easy to forget when all you talk is this stupid stuff and your frame of reference for things like economics and the knowledge that their are different target demographics for certain products completely disappears, leaving you incoherent to the state of asserting a $50 figure's dominance over a $10 toy, as if that's some sort of reasonable comparison....

"Breathe deep, seek peace"

I know I've done that quite a few times.

Anyway, I have to say, if there is a company that I can feel comfortable calling my favorite, at least one that I can compare with PNSO and not look like a goof, it's Eofauna. Given that they both inhabit the same price range of $30 to $50 and both specialize in scientific art, I don't think that's an unreasonable assertion. Sure, they don't release a ton of figures, but that's not a bad thing really, as it allows each one to be made basically as good as it can be, well, mostly it allows me to save some money. Wether or not I like their Theropods, PNSO's recent onslaught has been a bit of a wallet killer.

The only Eofauna figure I have any real accuracy issues with is the Giganotosaurus, hence why I don't own it, that and the fact that my climate is very cruel to Theropods. It's probably just me, but, when I get one of their figures, I definitely feel like I'm getting my money's worth, which is really never the case with PNSO.

[Stegotyranno420]

i agree with @Bread here. There isn't going to be a resolution, the issue is just going to turn from a discussion to an argument. Neither is innocent nor guilty, its just the nature of these kinds of things. There is no need to, for lack of a better, word petty.
On the thing about half ***ing, not only that is very harsh as you had recalled, but it doesn't even make sense
Now i hope I don't sound too harsh, I'm just trying to explain as best as possible with my wooden English

[stargatedalek]

Aside from my language, I don't see I'm being any more harsh than many people, including you, were towards the JW Pyroraptor design.

There was not merely complaint, but rage and disdain over that.

But mentioning the PNSO theropods issues gets you yelled at, met with disdain, and all concerns dismissed as being over-sensitive.

What makes PNSO ignoring well established evidence to make their theropods over-textured, leaving teeth hanging loose from their sockets, and generally leaning overly conservative in their reconstructions just "reasonable interpretation" but the JW Pyroraptor not having full wings worthy of rage and rant? Why are movie monsters treated more harshly and place under far more scrutiny than figures claiming to be researched scientific models?

[Stegotyranno420]

Aside from my language, I don't see I'm being any more harsh than many people, including you, were towards the JW Pyroraptor design.

Who are you talking too again?  Im pretty sure none of us in this current convo really cared too much about that pyroraptor thing, but i don't keep track of small things so i might be wrong.

This was the only guy who seemed to really care about it, and he just types like that whenever he speaks, he was not being harsh at all

Spoiler

@Reuben03

[close]

The way you were being harsh is that you are directly attacking the companies that work hard to make figures. It takes long and hard to make good sculptures, and they cant get every detail right. Its not easy. Especially with such controversial species, like Tyrannosaurus. Im pretty sure the sculptor said other things besides that it would hurt the lips. I agree it could use maybe partial lips and smaller scales, it was a coelurosaur so scales shouldn't be big. But regardless of who is right, its not something to fight over, or to start disrespecting others.
End of story, moving on.

[Concavenator]

my climate is very cruel to Theropods

Theropods:    ❌ ⛈>
Ornithischians: ✅✨❤️ ❤️✅☀️🌟 💗 💓💞❣️💖