David Silva's Beasts of the Mesozoic: Ceratopsian Series - WAVE TWO SHIPPING!

[suspsy]

I've become more excited about this project as it continues to unfold. I'll definitely be getting a couple of the smaller ceratopsians, and maybe the Torosaurus depending on how well it scales with the future Tyrannosaurus rex.

Same, the more David posts about the Kickstarter the more excited I get

Also, on the topic of adult VS juvenile Triceratops, here's what David said on Facebook:

"I do understand your perspective on this, and it is appreciated. It's not a point I've seen brought up before, so I thank you for that. However, Ronald has nailed the reasoning behind my decision to not make these two figures more different*, so I won't repeat what he's already taken the time to explain. I think what he is taking exception to is the idea that the strategy is 'lazy', and honestly, I do as well. While you bring up a good point, it is only one consideration of a much larger whole. While I'm not interested in explaining how inaccurate the term 'lazy' is to describe anything about this project, I will say that the smaller Triceratops, while sharing the same body sculpt, does have a unique sculpt for the head that was very deliberately based on the Paul drawing noted above. I always encourage constructive criticism as it has taught me a lot over the years, but it's really only useful when respect is shown for what myself and my team are looking to accomplish."

*The reasoning being that some collectors are on a budget and can't afford a 100$+ figurine, which is why the juvenile and adult are so similar sculpt-wise.

There you go. Very smart marketing strategy on Silva's, and a considerate one as well.

[Dinoguy2]

I've become more excited about this project as it continues to unfold. I'll definitely be getting a couple of the smaller ceratopsians, and maybe the Torosaurus depending on how well it scales with the future Tyrannosaurus rex.

Same, the more David posts about the Kickstarter the more excited I get

Also, on the topic of adult VS juvenile Triceratops, here's what David said on Facebook:

"I do understand your perspective on this, and it is appreciated. It's not a point I've seen brought up before, so I thank you for that. However, Ronald has nailed the reasoning behind my decision to not make these two figures more different*, so I won't repeat what he's already taken the time to explain. I think what he is taking exception to is the idea that the strategy is 'lazy', and honestly, I do as well. While you bring up a good point, it is only one consideration of a much larger whole. While I'm not interested in explaining how inaccurate the term 'lazy' is to describe anything about this project, I will say that the smaller Triceratops, while sharing the same body sculpt, does have a unique sculpt for the head that was very deliberately based on the Paul drawing noted above. I always encourage constructive criticism as it has taught me a lot over the years, but it's really only useful when respect is shown for what myself and my team are looking to accomplish."

*The reasoning being that some collectors are on a budget and can't afford a 100$+ figurine, which is why the juvenile and adult are so similar sculpt-wise.

There you go. Very smart marketing strategy on Silva's, and a considerate one as well.

That's what I thought. But I probably wouldn't have minded a sculpt based on a different specimen. Or, like I said, just call it the mini version rather than juvenile. Calling a shrunken down version of the adult a juvenile doesn't make sense to me especially seeing as how the juvenile Centrosaurus is based on actual juvenile specimens.

The Paul illustration just proves that original commenters point. It's one step below the adult in ontogeny and is only very slightly smaller. A half sized individual in the same chart has a radically different skull.

[Flaffy]

..to be honest, the more I see about this line and the less interested I am on it.. 

I definitely lost some interest when he "postponed" (which I think is a euphemism for "canceled") the leptoceratopsids and other less commonly made species to get to the standard ceratopsids earlier. But I'll probably still buy a few of them.

Same, I was extremely disappointed when David cut out the basal ceratopsians like Udanoceratops, Cerasinops, Yehuecauhceratops etc.
I really hope he'll include them post KS.

[Smilodon P.]

GIN 100/25 (Fighting Dinosaurs):

https://m.facebook.com/113487525333128/posts/3023591057656079/?notif_id=1566244061271009&notif_t=page_highlights&ref=notif

[LeapingLaelaps]

Ooooh! I can't wait to see the Protoceratops all painted up!

[suspsy]

Ooooh! I can't wait to see the Protoceratops all painted up!

That is one bigass Protoceratops. Looks like it could bite that puny Velociraptor right in two!

[Faelrin]

I really hope I can get this one. I've been wanting to pull off the Fighting Dinosaurs pose for a long time now.

[RobinGoodfellow]

Protoceratops could be the very first figure I'm quite interested in.
I really hope I won't see another "circus clown" paint pattern on it..   

[Shonisaurus]

I hope to get that protoceratops is the only protoceratops that of BoTM that I like of all the ones made, the only ones I have are Carnegie's and the UKRD's and sincerely they don't excite me as much as this great figure.

[suspsy]

Protoceratops could be the very first figure I'm quite interested in.
I really hope I won't see another "circus clown" paint pattern on it..   

That's not how any of the ceratopsians' colour schemes look at all. You do know they're all based on extant lizards, right?

[RobinGoodfellow]

Protoceratops could be the very first figure I'm quite interested in.
I really hope I won't see another "circus clown" paint pattern on it..   

That's not how any of the ceratopsians' colour schemes look at all. You do know they're all based on extant lizards, right?

Yes, you said it perfectly: lizards.
Do you know that lizards are not strictly related to dinosaurs, right?





One of the few known "colored" ceratopsian wasn't so colorful:

http://www.sci-news.com/paleontology/psittacosaurus-countershading-camouflage-04197.html

Even extant big animals are not so colorful (with little exceptions).

So, if you like striking colors on ceratopsians, nothing bad about that; simply I don't : different points of view...

[suspsy]

Please spare me the condescension; it's unnecessary and reflects poorly on yourself. And assuming that all ceratopsians had to have subdued colours simple because Psittacosaurus had them is no better than assuming that they all had "butt fuzz" because Psittacosaurus had it.

The simple fact is that none of the BotM ceratopsians look anything like that clown image you posted. If you personally don't like Silva's colour choices, that's fine, but such gross exaggeration isn't helpful.

[RobinGoodfellow]

Please spare me the condescension; it's unnecessary and reflects poorly on yourself. And assuming that all ceratopsians had to have subdued colours simple because Psittacosaurus had them is no better than assuming that they all had "butt fuzz" because Psittacosaurus had it.

The simple fact is that none of the BotM ceratopsians look anything like that clown image you posted. If you personally don't like Silva's colour choices, that's fine, but such gross exaggeration isn't helpful.

No condescension at all: I simply replied to you.
Nothing more...
-

[Dinoguy2]

There is definitely some selection bias going on, with not just this line but all dino collectible lines. The VAST majority of lizards (and birds) of all sizes and shapes have relatively subdued colors. A small percentage have bright, memorable patterns. When artists look for inspiration, especially if you want to market a toy or collectible, they're obviously going to select the more striking and memorable patterns, rather than arbitrarily picking one species out of ten to have bright colors. It's probably not scientifically accurate but it's understand forgivable, IMO. This is a commercial enterprise.

[RobinGoodfellow]

There is definitely some selection bias going on, with not just this line but all dino collectible lines. The VAST majority of lizards (and birds) of all sizes and shapes have relatively subdued colors. A small percentage have bright, memorable patterns. When artists look for inspiration, especially if you want to market a toy or collectible, they're obviously going to select the more striking and memorable patterns, rather than arbitrarily picking one species out of ten to have bright colors. It's probably not scientifically accurate but it's understand forgivable, IMO. This is a commercial enterprise.

Yes, you're right.
I didn't say that David Silva is wrong with his commercial strategy.
I said that I don't like colors he's using on this line.
And probably I won't buy them.
Also I said that I could buy his Protoceratops if it won't have  extravagant colors.
This is only MY opininion so there is no right or wrong on that..
Regards.

[Faelrin]

Well this is the color scheme for the Protoceratops (I think based off the Thorny Devil lizard?):




So while I'm fine with extant color choices and patterns being used for the most part (and in the case of the ceratopsians there was a lot of fan feedback for color schemes early on that likely contributed to some of the color schemes used), I do understand that the chances of these creatures having a near exact color scheme to some extant animal is slim to none (Anchiornis and Microraptor are probably the only exceptions I can think of, in having similar colorations to extant birds), but without the evidence who knows. It may as well come down to aesthetics, but that's going to be such a subjective thing, and what may work for one person, might not work for another.

[LeapingLaelaps]

Honestly, as someone who's both interested in paleontology, herpetology and ornithology, I LOVE that the color schemes of the raptors and ceratopsians are based on extant birds and lizards. It may not be 100% realistic, sure, but at the end of the day we have no idea what colors these animals were in real life (except for Psittacosaurus, I believe?) so even if David created a unique color design for each one, when/if we discovered what the animal actually looked like, David's color choice would become unrealistic anyways (unless of course he got really, REALLY lucky and somehow made one of his ceratopsians the exact colors as its real life counterpart).

If you don't like the colors that's 100% okay (even I'm not a fan of some of the color choices) but at the end of the day no one's forcing you to buy them. Not everyone likes the same things, and that's totally fine!

[Shonisaurus]

BoTM ceraptosides follow a philosophy and some people may like their color schemes or not (I sincerely like realistic colors and not squeaky is an appreciation) but nobody is obliged to buy such figures and personally if I had space and I can take money for sure that I would buy all the figures. Honestly I am perhaps interested in protoceratops and zuniceratops because of their size. The others can wait for my misfortune.

[amargasaurus cazaui]

Heavens knows I am more invested and interested in psittacosaurus than the average person I am guessing, but this talk about color schemes also misses a key point....we have coloration and patterning for one (1) specimen period...one. It might have been the female and as such more drably colored, or perhaps the males of that species were plainish looking....putting it in prespective however, psittacosaurus was a dinosaur that existed for some 30 million years across half of eastern russia, china, taiwan and further...my point is not only was it temporally diversified, it was also diversified over thousands and thousands of miles of habitats and had at least a dozen known species.....so we know what one looked like...there may well have been a species that looked just like that clown and one for each of Davids other ceratopsians models.....we dont know...but you can bet that there were alot of different colorations an patterns for it and some of them were rather grandiosaur comparitively speaking.

[RobinGoodfellow]

Heavens knows I am more invested and interested in psittacosaurus than the average person I am guessing, but this talk about color schemes also misses a key point....we have coloration and patterning for one (1) specimen period...one. It might have been the female and as such more drably colored, or perhaps the males of that species were plainish looking....putting it in prespective however, psittacosaurus was a dinosaur that existed for some 30 million years across half of eastern russia, china, taiwan and further...my point is not only was it temporally diversified, it was also diversified over thousands and thousands of miles of habitats and had at least a dozen known species.....so we know what one looked like...there may well have been a species that looked just like that clown and one for each of Davids other ceratopsians models.....we dont know...but you can bet that there were alot of different colorations an patterns for it and some of them were rather grandiosaur comparitively speaking.

Yes, you're right.
We know only few facts about long gone animals we never saw.
But we also know that color in nature always has an evolutionary purpose and it's not random: a sexual purpose, a camouflage purpose, an environmental purpose, a warning purpose ( for poisonous animals ) etc..
Nowadays and in the past too.
Psittacosaurus was a relatively small animal and small creatures can show a lot of color variations.
Triceratops was a really big animals and big animals usually don't show extreme colors because they don't need them.
I'm not saying that a big animal must have dull colors.
Giraffe has a wonderful color pattern.
I'm saying that a color scheme should have some kind of logic relation with the animal and the environment.
For example, an extremely colorful frill for a Triceratops could have a logic (a sexual purpose); a purple/red/black/green striped body for a Styracosaurus not so much.. it's only an aesthetic choice.
There is a reason why we don't have green and violet elephants or pink and purple rhinoceros..
That said, we know only few facts about past life; so if we assume that everything is possible, we are talking about a total different topic (more related with fantasy than facts ).
A personal opinion about Silva's ceratopsians line: color patterns are chosen with the unique purpose of surprising buyers (and from my personal point of view they're not even so appealing..)
I can fully understand commercial reasons behind that; I'm simply saying that I'm not interested.
I hope I was clear enough.
Regards