New DinoToyBlog entries

[tanystropheus]

I do find it a bit odd that Safari kept the head (i.e the face) scaly and unfeathered. I remember that there were pages and pages of criticism regarding the Papo Archaeopteryx's unfeathered head.

It is great that the mouth is closed in the WS model. Very few toy theropods feature a closed mouth expression.

[CityRaptor]

Well, I have seen some reconstructions with scaly heads...indeed that is my current laptop background.

...until the winter version comes out

If it comes out...And if the "Summer" Version is any indication, it will be four or five times as expensive as the Safari one.

[stargatedalek]

I do find it a bit odd that Safari kept the head (i.e the face) scaly and unfeathered. I remember that there were pages and pages of criticism regarding the Papo Archaeopteryx's unfeathered head.

That's because they are entirely different animals! Archeopteryx by Papo is not very accurate at all, the entire head is wrong, not just lacking feathers but the shape is wrong, the size is wrong, the neck is wrong. The Safari yutyrannus has more feathers on its head then the Papo archeopteryx, only its face is bare its neck is feathered, whereas the Papo archeopteryx has a bare head and underside of its neck. Its realistic to depict yutyrannus with a bald face, whereas we know archeopteryx should be feathered except for its jaws and tip of its snout.

I'm getting really sick of you trying to accuse everyone of "favoring brands besides Papo", and not one of your comparisons on this has been valid! You compare models by WS and CollectA that were made years ago and compare them to models Papo is currently making, that doesn't give an accurate comparison of the brands but only of the individual figures. Now you're actually complaining that a correct feature is "evidence of Papo hate". I'm just damn sick of it, if you want to accurately compare brands and not individual figures you have to compare figures that are recently made from each. You can't just take a model made by WS years ago and claim that Papo is the superior brand because of it, you have to look at what each brand is doing now to compare their current quality.

I'm sorry for inevitably coming off very aggressive with this and I'm sorry for doing it in this topic, but I had to get that off my chest.
Review and photos were very well done, great job and keep it up

[tanystropheus]

No, there is just way more apologetics going around for non-'lifelike' brands. If you look at the vast majority of images circulating for Yutyrannus, the face is completely covered with feathers. Even from an aesthetic perspective, it just makes sense to have the face covered with feathers. I just don't understand why they didn't go all the way...

Regarding the Papo Archaeo, the posterior fossa portion of the head/skull is feathered (orange quills, to be precise) and the dorsal surface of the neck is also covered with dark blue feathers.The main issue with the Papo version is the lack of a sickled claw on the second digit and the general color scheme---one of the rare cases where the Papo model was too colorful for its own good.

Yutyrannus review is excellent btw. I have no problems with what is mentioned.

[Concavenator]

No, there is just way more apologetics going around for non-'lifelike' brands. If you look at the vast majority of images circulating for Yutyrannus, the face is completely covered with feathers. Even from an aesthetic perspective, it just makes sense to have the face covered with feathers. I just don't understand why they didn't go all the way...

Regarding the Papo Archaeo, the posterior fossa portion of the head/skull is feathered (orange quills, to be precise) and the dorsal surface of the neck is also covered with dark blue feathers.

Yutyrannus review is excellent btw. I have no problems with what is mentioned.

And there are lots of images of Archaeopteryx that depict it with feathered facez.

[tanystropheus]

No, there is just way more apologetics going around for non-'lifelike' brands. If you look at the vast majority of images circulating for Yutyrannus, the face is completely covered with feathers. Even from an aesthetic perspective, it just makes sense to have the face covered with feathers. I just don't understand why they didn't go all the way...

Regarding the Papo Archaeo, the posterior fossa portion of the head/skull is feathered (orange quills, to be precise) and the dorsal surface of the neck is also covered with dark blue feathers.

Yutyrannus review is excellent btw. I have no problems with what is mentioned.

And there are lots of images of Archaeopteryx that depict it with feathered facez.

My point exactly. While we are critical of Papo Archaeo with respect to circulating artistic depictions in the literature, it is also of good form to scrutinize the Yutyrannus within the context of popular circulating artistic depictions (for better or for worse) as it appears in the literature.

[Concavenator]

No, there is just way more apologetics going around for non-'lifelike' brands. If you look at the vast majority of images circulating for Yutyrannus, the face is completely covered with feathers. Even from an aesthetic perspective, it just makes sense to have the face covered with feathers. I just don't understand why they didn't go all the way...

Regarding the Papo Archaeo, the posterior fossa portion of the head/skull is feathered (orange quills, to be precise) and the dorsal surface of the neck is also covered with dark blue feathers.

Yutyrannus review is excellent btw. I have no problems with what is mentioned.

And there are lots of images of Archaeopteryx that depict it with feathered facez.

My point exactly. While we are critical of Papo Archaeo with respect to circulating artistic depictions in the literature, it is also of good form to scrutinize the Yutyrannus within the context of popular circulating artistic depictions (for better or for worse) as it appears in the literature.

Depicting Archaeopteryx with a scaly face is technically inaccurate,while depicting a tyrannosaur with a scaly fa e isn't,as stargatedalek said.That said,if you pretend to criticise the model for that,you really are not in your right.Compare Papo's Archaeopteryx to Wild Safari's.They have been released in the same year.The Papo oen costs a lot more and is inaccurate as hell.The Wild Safari one is a lot cheaper and it just couldn't be more accurate.

[tanystropheus]

No, there is just way more apologetics going around for non-'lifelike' brands. If you look at the vast majority of images circulating for Yutyrannus, the face is completely covered with feathers. Even from an aesthetic perspective, it just makes sense to have the face covered with feathers. I just don't understand why they didn't go all the way...

Regarding the Papo Archaeo, the posterior fossa portion of the head/skull is feathered (orange quills, to be precise) and the dorsal surface of the neck is also covered with dark blue feathers.

Yutyrannus review is excellent btw. I have no problems with what is mentioned.

And there are lots of images of Archaeopteryx that depict it with feathered facez.

My point exactly. While we are critical of Papo Archaeo with respect to circulating artistic depictions in the literature, it is also of good form to scrutinize the Yutyrannus within the context of popular circulating artistic depictions (for better or for worse) as it appears in the literature.

Depicting Archaeopteryx with a scaly face is technically inaccurate,while depicting a tyrannosaur with a scaly fa e isn't,as stargatedalek said.That said,if you pretend to criticise the model for that,you really are not in your right.Compare Papo's Archaeopteryx to Wild Safari's.They have been released in the same year.The Papo oen costs a lot more and is inaccurate as hell.The Wild Safari one is a lot cheaper and it just couldn't be more accurate.

I never said that the Papo Archaeo is accurate as a whole. It is a hodgepodge of accurate and retro features. And, the WS version is the definitive version as far as I am concerned. However,  I just find it rather odd that the face of the Yutyrannus was left uncovered, when in many circles the current trend is to embrace a more bird-like aesthetic. It is a correct interpretation, nevertheless, but the commentary regarding the inclusion (or the lack thereof) appears to be lacking in the discussion sections of the forums.

[stargatedalek]

Archeopteryx is under different circumstances from yutyrannus. We have detailed fossils of archeopteryx and its close relatives that tell us an awful lot about it. Archeopteryx is an animal that doesn't leave a lot up to speculation, whereas a lot regarding yutyrannus appearance remains unknown. As such there's a lot more room for artistic liberty when depicting yutyrannus than there is when depicting archeopteryx. Just because a lot of people chose to depict yutyrannus with a feathered face doesn't mean it had one. Yutyrannus is still not an especially well known animal. However we have fossil evidence showing that archeopteryx did have a feathered face (and throat), that its head was smaller and more elongate, that its neck was significantly longer than on the Papo, that its wing extended along the full length of the middle finger, that its tail was significantly longer than shown, that it has a sickle claw on its inner toe, and that its colours differed from the Papo reconstruction. People (nigh yourself) aren't complaining about the yutyrannus bald head because there's no reason to, yutyrannus was fairly far removed from birds so giving it a facial feather coating is hardly necessary.

Keep in mind this is coming from someone who likes the Papo archeopteryx, but there is frankly no comparison of which is more accurate. When it comes to accuracy Papo isn't even trying.

*edit* ninja'd
and while I'm editing, how about we take this to another thread?

[tanystropheus]

Thank you for the explanation. I guess that you are right regarding the latitude for artistic liberty on the Yutyrannus. I suspected that it may have been an issue regarding public acceptance. Perhaps, a T-rex like animal being depicted as 100% feathered would not be appreciated wholeheartedly by the general public.

[stargatedalek]

I think its less to do with stigma surrounding feathered tyrannosaurs and more to do with adding contrast between the body and head, from an aesthetic perspective I mean.

[CityRaptor]

That is true. Leaving the head scaly won't make a difference with the aswesomebrow crowd. It's still a "lame" feathered Dinosaur to them.

[Doug Watson]

Thank you for the explanation. I guess that you are right regarding the latitude for artistic liberty on the Yutyrannus. I suspected that it may have been an issue regarding public acceptance. Perhaps, a T-rex like animal being depicted as 100% feathered would not be appreciated wholeheartedly by the general public.

Okay I am going to break my rule of addressing criticism of my pieces only because of conjecture like this. The decision to leave the head, hands and feet bare were mine and mine alone and had nothing to do with fear of acceptance by the general public. When it comes to doing my dinosaurs I am in total agreement with Dan LoRusso I base my pieces on what has been found and as much as possible not on conjecture. That is why I don't do species that haven't had a cranium discovered. Have you read the paper? Filamentous integumentary structures were found on three separate specimens in five separate areas of the body, the posterior caudal vertebrae, near the pelvis and pes, from the dorsal side of the neck and near a limb bone tentatively identified as the humerus. While the authors surmised that Yutyrannus had an extensive integument in life no where does it state that feathers were found in association with the cranium. I envisioned this large carnivore with its head buried deep in the abdominal cavity of its prey with its head soaked in blood. How does it clean its head feathers? it doesn't have long forelimbs with paws and fur like a lion so it can comb and lick off the blood. Instead I saw something like a vulture that has a bare head and neck by design for that very reason.  If they hadn't found feathers on the neck I may have left that bare as well. Brian Choo's well known illustration of Yutyrannus also shows a bare head, hands and feet. Until they find one with a fuzzy head my interpretation is just as valid as anyone else's IMHO.

[CityRaptor]

Thank your for the insight, Mr. Watson.

[tanystropheus]

Thank you for the explanation. I guess that you are right regarding the latitude for artistic liberty on the Yutyrannus. I suspected that it may have been an issue regarding public acceptance. Perhaps, a T-rex like animal being depicted as 100% feathered would not be appreciated wholeheartedly by the general public.

Okay I am going to break my rule of addressing criticism of my pieces only because of conjecture like this. The decision to leave the head, hands and feet bare were mine and mine alone and had nothing to do with fear of acceptance by the general public. When it comes to doing my dinosaurs I am in total agreement with Dan LoRusso I base my pieces on what has been found and as much as possible not on conjecture. That is why I don't do species that haven't had a cranium discovered. Have you read the paper? Filamentous integumentary structures were found on three separate specimens in five separate areas of the body, the posterior caudal vertebrae, near the pelvis and pes, from the dorsal side of the neck and near a limb bone tentatively identified as the humerus. While the authors surmised that Yutyrannus had an extensive integument in life no where does it state that feathers were found in association with the cranium. I envisioned this large carnivore with its head buried deep in the abdominal cavity of its prey with its head soaked in blood. How does it clean its head feathers? it doesn't have long forelimbs with paws and fur like a lion so it can comb and lick off the blood. Instead I saw something like a vulture that has a bare head and neck by design for that very reason.  If they hadn't found feathers on the neck I may have left that bare as well. Brian Choo's well known illustration of Yutyrannus also shows a bare head, hands and feet. Until they find one with a fuzzy head my interpretation is just as valid as anyone else's IMHO.

Thank you so much for the background information. This is exactly the type of commentary I was looking for in the discussion sections of the forum(s). So, it appears that I was wrong. Less creative license and more pragmatic application based on available fossil findings. Now that you mention it, I can see the bare head, wrists and feet in Brian Choo depiction, as well. I also appreciate the analogy to vultures. I suppose it makes sense conceptually...I always appreciate an inside (behind-the-scenes developer/director commentary) perspective to the rationale behind opting for one particular interpretation over another. I haven't read the paper, but I should probably familiarize myself with it.

[Doug Watson]

Thank you so much for the background information. This is exactly the type of commentary I was looking for in the discussion sections of the forum(s). So, it appears that I was wrong. Less creative license and more pragmatic application based on available fossil findings. Now that you mention it, I can see the bare head, wrists and feet in Brian Choo depiction, as well. I also appreciate the analogy to vultures. I suppose it makes sense conceptually...I always appreciate an inside (behind-the-scenes developer/director commentary) perspective to the rationale behind opting for one particular interpretation over another. I haven't read the paper, but I should probably familiarize myself with it.

You are welcome and the paper is available here, I hope this works. http://www.xinglida.net/pdf/Xu_et_al_2012_Yutyrannus.pdf

[suspsy]

The terrific Tanystropheus!
http://dinotoyblog.com/2015/02/27/tanystropheus-jurassic-park-dinosaurs-by-kenner/

[DinoToyForum]

The terrific Tanystropheus!
http://dinotoyblog.com/2015/02/27/tanystropheus-jurassic-park-dinosaurs-by-kenner/

Love this mad figure.

[CityRaptor]

Let's say they took some liberties with this one. I have the Chaos Effect version of this gal, where they claim that it has Anaconda DNA. I think the original version was also nicknamed "Cobra"
COOOOOOOOBRAAAAAAA!
So yes, a snake theme is clearly present.

I also wonder who downvoted the Yutyrannus.

[Shadowknight1]

Let's say they took some liberties with this one. I have the Chaos Effect version of this gal, where they claim that it has Anaconda DNA. I think the original version was also nicknamed "Cobra"
COOOOOOOOBRAAAAAAA!
So yes, a snake theme is clearly present.

I also wonder who downvoted the Yutyrannus.

Certainly not me, that review convinced me to buy the fuzzy little beast!