Controversial opinions on dinosaur toys

[Reuben03]

@Faelrin Thank you, and actually I am fine with the JP/JW line from Mattel. I think the pop culture designs I am referring to are the Disney's Dinosaur Velociraptor sculpt. The build of the genus (slightly) but with the naked skin. I feel like that variant is way over done.

@Reuben03 and @Stegotyranno420 thank you as well.

oh really? huh i dont see much of that! just lots of JP knockoffs, any prime examples?

[Halichoeres]

First, thanks for a generally cordial exchange on a subject where passions sometimes run high. I'm glad we can have some civil disagreement.

I take your point about most theropods also not getting figures, although I'm not really sure what parameters you're setting here. You and I obviously have different thresholds for how realistic a figure must be to be included in a collection, but I have 135 unique Mesozoic theropod genera in mine, which even without explicitly doing the calculation I can tell you is a higher percentage of total diversity than any comparable clade. At a minimum, I'd include Safari's Daspletosaurus as a recent example of a high-quality reconstruction of a seldom-made genus, although of course its close relatives get plenty of attention.

I can see why someone might take it personally when someone bashes something they're a fan of, but I don't think anyone intends it to be hurtful. Similarly, I haven't liked a JP/JW movie since 1997 (and that was a close one), and I've criticized the movies on the forum, but that doesn't diminish my affection or respect for people who do like them--they just like something different from me. I hope nobody has mistaken my distaste for the franchise as a personal attack.

But I get it. I often hear people say they only collect dinosaurs, or only sauropsids, or only land animals, and it generally excludes the majority of my favorite groups (arthropods, molluscs, 'fishes,' plants), and I find that discouraging too, even though obviously nobody is saying that with the purpose of discouraging me. For me it's hard to fathom that anybody could be uninterested in figures of animals like these:

[/url]





Or plants like this one:

[triceratops83]

This isn't really a dig at the Mattel Jurassic World line, which is a good thing, but it's super annoying to have to see so many of them when you search for a dinosaur on say, Ebay. Once upon a time you could type in Edmontosaurus, and get a good crop of results in just a few pages, but NOW, you have to sift through twenty pages of Mattel figures. It's the same with any dinosaur from that line. I mean, Good God! Did anyone buy these things without the intent to sell them online?

[Gwangi]

I think the complaint over too many theropods gets tiresome to read, especially for those who primarily collect theropods or dinosaurs in general. That said, I totally understand everything Halichoeres is saying and I understand and share his frustrations. I also think that context is important here. Most of these toys are made for children, very few adults collect toy dinosaurs, let alone other prehistoric animals, especially things like fishes, flatworms, or plants. I think that since we immerse ourselves in this tiny community we lose touch with that fact. Dinosaurs sell, fishes don't, and no one should be surprised by this. Dinosaur collecting, by itself, is an incredibly niche hobby. The abundance of Jurassic Park inspired toys and models is kind of proof of this, because those are made less for dinosaur buffs than they are for straight up movie buffs. Collecting movie memorabilia is more popular that collecting extinct animals.

Instead of bemoan the abundance of theropod toys, and piss on everyone's Cheerios, I think we need to appreciate what we have instead. Going back to Marx toys from the 50's, dinosaur toys have only existed for 66 years. For someone like my father, who was also a dinosaur nerd, Marx toys were all there was. During my youth the best dinosaur collectables were by Invicta and later, Carnegie. A Dunkleosteus toy? Forget about it! That was only 37 or so years ago. As a kid I watched a documentary about the Cambrian and the Burgess Shale, I fell in love with that time period. Zero collectables to represent any of it. Eleven years ago, when I first got into this hobby, the best prehistoric mammals available were crude, retired figures by AAA and Bullyland, now look at the stuff we're getting from Safari, CollectA, Mojo, and Eofauna. Halichoeres said "those kinds of arguments kind of sound like lottery winners complaining about the paintwork on their yachts" but to me, this whole conversation sounds like lottery winners complaining about the paintwork on their yachts.

It's not the fault of theropods that there aren't more toy fishes. People like the big theropods and I think we all know why. It doesn't matter how cool Tricericthys looks, it cannot rend massive amounts of flesh from another living animal. It's just like how sharks are more popular than Ophidiiformes or Etheosomatidae. This preference for certain animals exists across the board in every conceivable metric. In everything from toy collecting, to documentaries, to wildlife conservation. Let me be clear, I love fishes, I was an aquaculture major in college, I've written several fishkeeping articles for popular magazines, I've maintained many aquariums over the years, and I've also experienced immense frustration that by-and-large, most people don't care about them. Among extant animal toys, a hobby I recently got into, it's the big mammals that sell, large carnivorans are the theropods, actual theropods (birds) are heavily neglected aside from a few of the more glamourous species because they're not the big dangerous predators anymore. Plenty of toy crocodilians, few toy agamids. It's all very primal. Humans are monkeys, monkeys with a fascination for the things that can kill them, and because of that this unfortunate discrepancy will always exist. But count your blessings and vote with your wallet because it is getting better, we shouldn't take it for granted or alienate other collectors for their own preferences.

[CityRaptor]

Pretty much my counter argument when people complain about the lack of prehistoric mammal figures.  Mammals rule the extant animal market. And the most produced animals are obviously humans and horses, there is no doubt about it. Sure, carnivores might dominated the wildlife portion, but overall it is horses and humans who get the most figures, with extant dinosaurs being mostly ignored. Hence Dinosaurs shall rule the extinct animal market. Which is already much smaller than the extant animal one.


@triceratops83:  Could be worse. Try searching a species Schleich also made on Ebay. Or any species represented in the game Ark on Goggle.  Also if you do not want a specific brand, try searching like this:
https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=p2380057.m570.l1313&_nkw=edmontosaurus+-jurassic+-mattel&_sacat=0

[triceratops83]

@triceratops83:  Could be worse. Try searching a species Schleich also made on Ebay. Or any species represented in the game Ark on Goggle.  Also if you do not want a specific brand, try searching like this:
https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=p2380057.m570.l1313&_nkw=edmontosaurus+-jurassic+-mattel&_sacat=0

@CityRaptor - Aw, that is awesome! I had no idea you could do that. Thank you so much!

[Halichoeres]

For sure, I get why people are drawn to theropods, especially initially. Maybe 70% of the time you can guess someone's favorite dinosaur if you know where they're from, because it's going to be whatever the biggest theropod from their country is (Italy has an absolutely incredible marine record, and terrestrial Triassic record, but the hubbub is about the isolated scraps that constitute Saltriovenator). 20% of the time it will be some other theropod, usually one of the 5 or so that have had a hint of a claim to "biggest ever." For some people, prehistory is just about who would win in a fight. Not that there's anything wrong with that, or with one's favorite being a theropod. Still, I'm always going to evangelize for the underdogs, because even if someone's favorite food is pizza, it doesn't follow that they should eat nothing else. I've definitely dialed back my badmouthing of theropods, though, and the quote in my profile that is the only reason I'm having this conversation is, I think, pretty gentle.

I agree with your general premise that the market for prehistoric toys has generally improved, but I would actually say that the peak for non-dinosaur enthusiasts in particular was the early 2000s, when Kaiyodo was making DinoTales, Yowie was making Lost Kingdoms, ROM was making Primeval Predators, and even GeoWorld was making its Jurassic Sea Creatures magnets. I wasn't in the hobby then--I was an $8/hour construction worker living in a 2-bedroom apartment with 5 other people, so I couldn't even dream of collecting things like these. But the larger point stands, and I vote with my wallet as you say. But I have an activist streak, and even though I know activists are annoying, sometimes they get things done.

[Gwangi]

I feel like there's a fine line between evangelizing for the underdogs and just coming off as a pretentious snob that ultimately turns people off to whatever you're trying to turn them on to. It exists for every hobby. The high brow movie buff, the hipster that only listens to underground music, the comic book nerd who doesn't like super hero movies, the wine snob, the native fish keeper that talks down tropical fish keeping. Ok, that last one was really specific, but it was also me at one point. I'm not trying to say you are those people, just that it's a fine line to walk before descending to that level. I think you can promote what you like without degrading what other people like. Us regular members who know you better understand where you're coming from but other members, maybe not so much, as this thread demonstrates. You could say, who cares what other people think anyway? Well, if the idea is to generate interest in something than you might want to care a little.

My intent is not to offend, just sharing thoughts I've formed via observation over the last few years. I love that you're here and consider you one of the forum's most valuable members. It's great to have educated academics with extensive knowledge in their fields, and I love what you bring to the table with the prehistoric fishes especially. Your collection thread is one of the best on here, your reviews are some of the best on the blog. I still think you should post the Dunkelosteus comparison article you wrote. You have definitely dialed back the anti-theropod rhetoric too, so I think you understand what I'm saying here. 

I really miss Kaiyodo Dinotales, and I definitely don't have enough of them.

[suspsy]

I agree with everything @Gwangi wrote. I've encountered a number of individuals in online dinosaur groups who openly sneer at those who pick the most popular genera as their favourites and they frankly baffle and amuse me more than they anger me. Who are they kidding anyway? They're nobodies. They don't get to look down their noses at anyone. But that is not what has been happening in this thread right now. 

Ultimately, I find the whole debate over which genera have received the most toys to be boring and pointless (despite my active participation in the discussion). It stems largely from my avowed stance in life as a realist. The situation is never, ever going to change and there isn't anything any of us can do about it. T. rex and the other big name beasts are always going to dominate the market, so I just don't see any point in constantly lamenting it. I think the only thing we can do (which is not an original idea on my part) is try to buy as many toys of lesser known animals as we can afford so that the manufacturers are encouraged to continue making them. That does seem to have been the case with CollectA's prehistoric invertebrates. Let's all work to keep that trend going. I want both my BotM 1/18 T. rex and a Rativates. And a Zuul. And an Aardonyx. And a Belantsea. And a Jaekelopterus. And so on.

[Bowhead Whale]

Tyrannosaurus is boring.

YOU CAN SAY THAT AGAIN!!!! And I would be very interested in a Cothylorinchus figure. And a plant like the one is shown. All those unknown animals-plants figures would need to excite interest is an information tag. Safari ltd and Bullyland made figures with information tags. Why not try release figures of them with tags? And the plant: why not include it in a Safari ltd Prehistoric Plants toob? I think it could work.

[Halichoeres]

@Gwangi  thanks for the kind words. I know just what you mean, it is pretty easy to come off as mean or exclusionary. Newbies are good for a hobby, and a great way to discourage newbies is by telling them that what they like sucks. I mean, the first dinosaurs I bought were Papos!

@suspsy  I'm sure you're right that the few biggest theropods will always get the most attention, but a pretty small marginal difference in market share can make a big difference to collectors of other creatures. There can be both _____ and _____ as you suggest. Lineups that are 100% theropod like Kaiyodo's or Safari's (Safari can claim some extenuating circumstances, to be fair) are pretty disheartening, but I was over the moon in 2019 and 2020 when Safari offered just a single Triassic taxon. Naturally I bought them pretty damn quick.

Tyrannosaurus is boring.

YOU CAN SAY THAT AGAIN!!!! And I would be very interested in a Cothylorinchus figure. And a plant like the one is shown. All those unknown animals-plants figures would need to excite interest is an information tag. Safari ltd and Bullyland made figures with information tags. Why not try release figures of them with tags? And the plant: why not include it in a Safari ltd Prehistoric Plants toob? I think it could work.

Oh gosh. FWIW I don't really think it's boring as an animal, but I confess I can no longer get excited about toys of it.

[stargatedalek]

Whether the real Tyrannosaurus was boring or not is not particularly relevant to me when every toy of it is plenty boring.

Not one playing into the nocturnal vision, not one doing anything neat with the unusual foot pads, and despite making a new one every four years no company aside from CollectA has done anything interesting where they could play off of each other in some way or make for scenes together, and even CollectA backed out of that and then made a couple rex more anyway.

If anything, Tyrannosaurus is the biggest victim of its own popularity, because no Tyrannosaurus reconstruction will ever be permitted to be unique or interesting, lest they risk a single 8 year old not instantly recognizing it.

[SRF]

Whether the real Tyrannosaurus was boring or not is not particularly relevant to me when every toy of it is plenty boring.

Not one playing into the nocturnal vision, not one doing anything neat with the unusual foot pads, and despite making a new one every four years no company aside from CollectA has done anything interesting where they could play off of each other in some way or make for scenes together, and even CollectA backed out of that and then made a couple rex more anyway.

If anything, Tyrannosaurus is the biggest victim of its own popularity, because no Tyrannosaurus reconstruction will ever be permitted to be unique or interesting, lest they risk a single 8 year old not instantly recognizing it.

The main problem for me is that about 90% of each T. Rex figure that gets released is still based on the JP reconstruction we've known since 1993, especially the higher end models. But there are still some exceptions to that rule luckily, which make those models instantly a small breath of fresh air if you ask me.

I'm not sure how you want to capture nocturnal vision in a plastic figure, but when it comes to binocular vision, the T. Rexes of Safari, PNSO and Collecta do quite well. The newsest PNSO Rex also has the foot pads you've mentioned.

Of cours we're all looking for something different in a dinosaur figure maybe. When it comes to T. Rex, I'm still extremely happy with the latest PNSO one since it is based on the AMNH specimen which was the first T. Rex reconstruction I've got to know of as a child. Seeing a modern, 2020's reconstruction of it makes it, despite its flaws, still a very exciting model for me.

[Stegotyranno420]

1.There's no point in arguing with tyrannosaurus fans about who would win fights. It will just waste your time.

2.Another one is that the Original Jurassic park is actually the most boring of the series, and Jp3 and Jw are tied for the top spot in my book. I'm here for cool Dino action, not to hear about legal stuff . I will be honest, the scenes with Nedry were my favorite in the movie

3. We should stop focusing on Spinosaurus figures, as we have already gotten very good ones, and start focusing on stegosaurs and kin. We only got 2 dacentrurus and both are kind of crummy in my opinion

[Shane]

1.There's no point in arguing with tyrannosaurus fans about who would win fights. It will just waste your time.

2.Another one is that the Original Jurassic park is actually the most boring of the series, and Jp3 and Jw are tied for the top spot in my book. I'm here for cool Dino action, not to hear about legal stuff . I will be honest, the scenes with Nedry were my favorite in the movie

3. We should stop focusing on Spinosaurus figures, as we have already gotten very good ones, and start focusing on stegosaurs and kin. We only got 2 dacentrurus and both are kind of crummy in my opinion

Your take on the Jurassic Park franchise is sure to be controversial. I will say that I'm assuming based on other posts that you aren't old enough to have seen the first JP in theaters. So maybe that makes me biased, but none of the other films have come anywhere close to recapturing that feeling about seeing such believable dinosaurs on film for the first time.

And I for one am happy to see as many Spinosaurus toys as we can get. I love to see the new ways that companies incorporate the changes and discoveries that come out every few years as new material is described.

In my lifetime I don't think any dinosaur has changed quite as drastically in our understanding of how it looked and behaved as much as Spinosaurus did. Most other dinosaurs look roughly the same as they were depicted when I was a kid, sure their wrists aren't pronated and some have feathers. But Spinosaurus...

It went from a large generic theropod with a sail, to a theropod with a sail and a crocodile face, to a theropod with a sail and a crocodile face and some of the weirdest proportions ever, to a theropod with a sail, crocodile face, weird proportions, and finned tail. I think Spinosaurus (and its associated toys) are a great example of how we can never really get too attached to any depiction of prehistoric animals, as our understanding is changing all the time.

[SRF]

I don't think this is a controversial opinion here, but discussing dinosaur fights between species that lived millions of years apart from each other is probably one of the most pointless things in life. And that's coming from a T. Rex fanboy.

S @Shane I think my soft spot for the first two Jurassic movies also comes from the fact that I've seen them in theaters as a kid. When I watched Jurassic World in theaters being 30+ years old, it couldn't live up to those two movies. Although the Lost World is of course actually a flawed movie, it's still in the number 2 spot for me. I don't think it is too controversial to say either that the first JP is probably the only dinosaur movie that is actually a good movie. It holds up very well even for todays standards I think. 

[Shane]

I've rewatched all the Jurassic franchise movies multiple times over the years, because I like seeing dinosaurs on screen, but I still think none of them really captures the sense of wonder and awe that comes from seeing dinos like the first film. And by the JW entries, I think that's partially the point - by that time, everyone's seen dinosaurs, both in-universe and in a meta way through the films - as an audience, we've seen it all before.

So it's interesting to see the viewpoints of folks who are seeing them more or less at the same time, for the first time, without the context of just how big a deal the first JP film was when it came out. Talk to a paleontologist who's in their 30s-40s today and it's a safe bet that watching the first JP in theaters is directly what influenced them to become a paleontologist.

[Faelrin]

S @Shane I was not old enough to see the first JP in theaters either (I'm 30 now so one could guess why), but it was still the first entry in the series for me. I know he is much younger then I. I know when I was younger I had more interest in the dinosaur action, but as I grew older (and possibly having read the novel was something of an eye opener), I realized the film is less about dinosaurs than it is about the irresponsible use of genetic power, spared expense, and that nature cannot be controlled. The dinosaurs were merely a means to an end in that case. Now the lunch meeting scene, and the scene between just Hammond and Sattler are some of my favorite scenes, when I had previously found them dull and boring when I was much younger.

It's also possible it wasn't his first entry in the series either. For many people their first is usually their favorite, the one they hold the most nostalgia for. I have seen this with Star Wars fans as well. And I suppose that's okay. Our interest in these films is subjective after all. I absolutely enjoy the second film despite some weak plot elements (and the third), but I know many others have a great dislike towards it.

I would say Deinocheirus definitely did as well, in addition to Spinosaurus, but Spinosaurus went certainly went through more of a gradual transformation based on increasing evidence, where as with Deinocheirus it literally had arms, and then complete specimens, as far as I'm aware. It was thought to be from a large predatory theropod earlier on, then a large ornithomimosaur of sorts, and that line of thinking was correct once the rest of it was discovered, although the shape it took was unlike anything discovered before it.

You are definitely right about not getting too attached to any one reconstruction. Science marches on, and with it so will the shape of these animals. Edit: Just look at Igaunodon from its discovery until now for example.

[Shane]

I would say Deinocheirus definitely did as well, in addition to Spinosaurus, but Spinosaurus went certainly went through more of a gradual transformation based on increasing evidence, where as with Deinocheirus it literally had arms, and then complete specimens, as far as I'm aware. It was thought to be from a large predatory theropod earlier on, then a large ornithomimosaur of sorts, and that line of thinking was correct once the rest of it was discovered, although the shape it took was unlike anything discovered before it.

You are definitely right about not getting too attached to any one reconstruction. Science marches on, and with it so will the shape of these animals. Edit: Just look at Igaunodon from its discovery until now for example.

I thought about mentioning Deinocheirus, but as you said it pretty much went from ONLY ARMS to HERE'S THE WHOLE THING, whereas Spinosaurus went through several iterations based on new material that was described over time.

I don't recall too many speculative Deinocheirus reconstructions in most of the books I had growing up; they tended to only show the arms or just present a silhouette that was vaguely theropod shaped. Today, it kinda feels like any new bit of jawbone or vertebra that gets discovered, suddenly you have full on restorations that are 95% speculative, but that didn't seem to happen with Deinocheirus as much since nobody even knew what kind of dinosaur it was (though there were those who believed it could be an ornithomimosaur as far back as the 1970s).

The approach was quite different with Spinosaurus. Paleo-artists had no problem speculating based on fragmentary material, and it's been very interesting to grow up from the 1980s to now seeing the gradual yet dramatic shift that Spinosaurus has undergone. I personally love to see this reflected in toys and figures, and I have a collection of Spinosaurus figures that I love displaying just to show how the changes take place over time, from the Definitely Dinosaurs and original Carnegie depictions to the more modern ones you see in PNSO and the new Safari versions.

[Stegotyranno420]

I don't think this is a controversial opinion here, but discussing dinosaur fights between species that lived millions of years apart from each other is probably one of the most pointless things in life. And that's coming from a T. Rex fanboy.

S @Shane I think my soft spot for the first two Jurassic movies also comes from the fact that I've seen them in theaters as a kid. When I watched Jurassic World in theaters being 30+ years old, it couldn't live up to those two movies. Although the Lost World is of course actually a flawed movie, it's still in the number 2 spot for me. I don't think it is too controversial to say either that the first JP is probably the only dinosaur movie that is actually a good movie. It holds up very well even for todays standards I think.

The problem with some groups of dinosaur fans, usually ones from the very late Cretaceous is that they usually just take all of the fun out of it by just being in the majority and stubborn.  If you are just talking with your friend with what dinosaurs will win out of time pass or curiosity, or just animating a short film about it for fun, I don't think it's pointless