Papo - new for 2019

[Patrx]

Indeed there is a big difference between reasoned speculation on known unknowns, like most soft tissue details or missing skeletal anatomy, and reconstructive decisions which are genuinely falsifiable, like an impossible pose or integumentary condition. These parameters change with new information, that's how all science works. Unfortunately, the public has a bad habit of regarding the act of changing one's position on anything as a sign of factual instability or weakness. But, I digress; my point is, that a dinosaur model that works as a valid reconstruction in 2019 might well be invalidated by 2020. Does that mean you gotta throw it away? Only if you want to. Maybe you're attached to that old reconstruction. That's totally fine, but you still have to admit that it doesn't "work" as a reconstruction anymore.

That's why I want to know if the tail on this new Spinosaurus has a soft-tissue paddle on it, or if it's actually meant to have modified caudal vertebrae. The former hypothesis is much more defensible than the latter.

[stargatedalek]

What bothers me is I can overlook some minor things like oversized teeth, a little shrinkwrapping, ect.. heck they even got the huge thick arms right on this one..but then they blow it on the tail.  It's not a paleoartist decision to totally make up something we know it didn't have.   You can flatten out the tail a bit, make it crocodilian, they are distantly related.  But why add a fish tail?  There is no way that looks right...unless it's a SyFy channel monster.    One thing is for sure a lot of folks can't complain about Jurassic Park designs if theyapprove of this in total appearance.

A fin is a lot more realistic than giving it crocodilian scutes on the tail, like every other company seems to have done. Nearly every aquatic animal eventually developed some sort of fin on its tail, and Spinosaurus was a highly derived aquatic animal, potentially sharing more (anatomically and behaviorally) in common with Mosasaurs or even whales than with crocodiles.

We have fairly solid evidence that Spinosaurus was an active hunter, and a lot of evidence that it fed on large fish, not ambushing terrestrial vertebrates (it also lived in coastal environments). Just to run home how truly arbitrary the crocodile connection is, genetics are the only thing (aside from nails) that Spinosaurus shares in common with crocodiles that it doesn't also share in common with dolphins. Yes dolphins.

Even purely based on statistical odds of it developing crocodilian scutes instead of the structure that every other marine animal that used its tail in propulsion developed is enough to say this Spinosaurus wins in the tail department.

That's why I want to know if the tail on this new Spinosaurus has a soft-tissue paddle on it, or if it's actually meant to have modified caudal vertebrae. The former hypothesis is much more defensible than the latter.

Also this. It looks like an eels tail to me, with scutes (groan) along the first section of it rather than spines. But if it is meant to be supported by bones than it's contradicting what little we do have from the tail material.

Makes me laugh how many experts on here seemed to be around when dinosaurs were alive to know what they exactly should of looked like  , yes we can 'guess' their structure from bones, and fossilised skin helps us know the texture of some, but there is not a single person on this planet who knows what they looked like for sure, they could of been pink with yellow spots and had dreadlocks for all we know, most of what we do know is from self taught scientists, who we know over time change their minds every couple of years, about how something looked and lived, I have fossil dinosaur teeth and one of them has had 5 latin name changes, and a complete species change in 10 years, we need to cut the model makers some slack, if you dont like or agree with a model dont buy it no one makes you, buy it because you like it. 

Hopefully that brief examination was interesting for you, that's just an example of the things it's possible to reasonably infer from even poorly known extinct animals. There are a few species that we can say with absolute guarantees what they would have looked like in life, such as Microraptor. We know everything from the manner in which it flew, to what it ate, to what colours it was and what positions it held its feathers in. Most lie somewhere between these two extremes.

[Patrx]

Just to run home how truly arbitrary the crocodile connection is, genetics are the only thing (aside from nails) that Spinosaurus shares in common with crocodiles that it doesn't also share in common with dolphins. Yes dolphins.

This, for sure. We've got a lot of new Spinosaurus figures this year, and all of 'em have crocodile integument. It's like the snout and the (semi?)-aquatic lifestyle just make it impossible for some folks to picture it as anything but an aberrant crocodile, never mind the fact that modern croc skin is super unusual.

[Faelrin]

The croc skin on Spinosaurus is just a paleo meme at this point, like when everyone gave dromaeosaurids fan tails based on the old interpretation of the Microraptor fossil holotype, even after it was shown to not have a tail like that. At least with Zhenyuanlong's discovery it has pushed some in the right direction. Sure there's still a slim chance Spinosaurus had croc like scutes in its life, but it is mostly just a forced paleo meme currently because of the whole dino croc thing Spinosaurus has in pop culture as it is.

I agree that a small fin on its tail wouldn't be completely out of the question, and is honestly just as plausible or implausible as the croc skin without any integument evidence right now. Maybe even more so because of what we know of its lifestyle. It's a fresh take right now with all the ones we are getting for 2019 in any case.

[Duna]

I was just about to order the Collecta spino (I also liked the Safari new one, but I prefer the lighter colors of the Collecta version), and now I'll wait for sure to see more about the Papo one. The size is just perfect. That tail doesn't bother me at all.

[dragon53]

This new video has a good discussion about the new Papo Spinosaurus including his speculation about "Limited Edition" at 2:19 elapsed time and the posture, etc.


Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Edei5ylTRs

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

To clarify I would be fine with a fleshy tail, heck even feathers.  But I can't recall one animal with a similar genetic background to Spinosaurus that has a tail liked a boney fish. 



It could had a reptilian fin or a feathered one...both would have been weird but possible. 

I'm mostly genuinely confused that so many are okay with this feature when we complain about Jurassic Park/World so much. I recall just a few years ago when no one approved of the Todd Marshall look and that was at least plausible.

[Shadowknight1]

Honestly, if I can get my hands on it, this will probably replace the CollectA one.  I know that it's probably more accurate, but...I really like this Papo one's colors a lot more.  CollectA's looks like it's adapted for a desert environment.  I don't believe Egypt was a desert when Spinosaurus roamed.  I just hope this won't be too difficult to get a hold of.

[stargatedalek]

To clarify I would be fine with a fleshy tail, heck even feathers.  But I can't recall one animal with a similar genetic background to Spinosaurus that has a tail liked a boney fish.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. The fin does not have visible spines, it looks more like an eel or salamander.

Neither crocodiles nor birds share a common aquatic ancestor with Spinosaurus, so their genetic relation is irrelevant in terms of determining aquatic adaptations. We should forego them in favor of animals that are more similar anatomically.

If whales seem like a stretch I don't blame you, but what about Mosasaurs, or Salamanders? I think Salamanders are probably the best analogues we have anatomically for Spinosaurus tail (though fully aquatic animals are likely a better match behaviorally).

Of all heavily aquatic animals only a handful did not develop tail fins (and I would argue crocodiles themselves did to an extent).

I'm mostly genuinely confused that so many are okay with this feature when we complain about Jurassic Park/World so much. I recall just a few years ago when no one approved of the Todd Marshall look and that was at least plausible.

That was more about the look being overused, with the excessive spines feeling like a particularly cringey play on the animals name with no logical reason for them.

[paintingdinos]

I, for one, love the aesthetics of a more salamander-like tail. Its a nice change of pace.

Though to be honest the Todd Marshall Spino remains my favorite Spino look. To me the spikes have always appeared more like the whiskers on wobbegong shark. Something soft and frayed looking, possibly as a camouflage adaptation, more than actual spikes. Hmm, its a good look, would love a toy that more closely resembled it.

[tanystropheus]

Yeah, once you get past the hype, it becomes all too clear that this is yet another Papo figure that's more monster than animal. It's definitely an improvement over the first Spinosaurus, but that's setting the bar low.

I'm going to be quite frank with you. Your bias is really showing on this one. It's no more a monster than any other quadrupedal Spino. Aesthetically, it trumps the CollectA version by a huge margin. Yes, I am aware of the tail fluke, but that's minor creative liberties...Your second statement is an incredible exaggeration.

Make no mistake. This is NOT a movie monster, unless you happen to have a warped view of what constitutes a hollywood monster. No movie monster depiction would ever present a Spino reconstruction in that manner. That's a ridiculous conclusion with no basis in reality. For the sake of objectivity, I really hope you do not review any more Papo products.

[tanystropheus]

Scientifically, the spinosaurus versions of Collecta, Schleich and Safari are superior. But honestly the one that I like the most for its details is undoubtedly Papo's (which may be in the background with the versions of Rebor and PNSO).

I sincerely know that it is not a scientific figure but I really like the spinosaurus of Papo version of 2019. I understand that many members of the forum do not like Papo for his modern paleoartistic style but honestly I am very happy with the spinosaurus of Papo and honestly it is one of the best made by a toy company and rivals with resin versions, although I also have to admit that they are more precise and superfluous also those of the three companies mentioned in my first paragraph, that does not mean that for me one of the best spinosaurus made by a toy brand and we must thank Papo for his titanic effort in the realization of this figure.

It is true that many figures of Papo follow a philosophy of modern or avant-garde art as it happens with his baryonyx but sincerely this spinosaurus of Papo 2019 with the inaccuracies (tail of eel) observed by the members of the forum is a real dinosaur that has nothing to do with other figures of the same brand.

My thoughts exactly , if you were to ask someone who doesn't know much about dinosaurs except From seeing them on  films or ask someone who doesn't give a heck about dinosaurs , and you show them Papo , schleich , safari , collectA and rebor , 99% of them would say rebor and Papo stomps the other 3 . In terms of detail and realism , it's not even a contest

Also,it's not that I hate Papo.I have some Papo figures in my collection,and I think their sculptor has a lot of talent,but I'm not interested in their monster dinosaurs and their high price.

You seem quite vocal for someone that doesn't dislike Papo and calling their creations "monster" is a bit disrespectful. Papo models are more scientific than monster with a few inaccurate embellishments here and there (what company doesn't have inaccuracies, case-in-point WS's Styracosaurus horns or Eofauna opting for older skull reconstruction for the Giga). It's been this way for a few years already minus some obvious movie cash-ins like the Dimorphodon. I'm sure the Pentaceratops is a movie monster too using what passes as logic these days. The real reason is the high price under the guise of "just look at these monstrosities, oh my!".

[Joey]

Scientifically, the spinosaurus versions of Collecta, Schleich and Safari are superior. But honestly the one that I like the most for its details is undoubtedly Papo's (which may be in the background with the versions of Rebor and PNSO).

I sincerely know that it is not a scientific figure but I really like the spinosaurus of Papo version of 2019. I understand that many members of the forum do not like Papo for his modern paleoartistic style but honestly I am very happy with the spinosaurus of Papo and honestly it is one of the best made by a toy company and rivals with resin versions, although I also have to admit that they are more precise and superfluous also those of the three companies mentioned in my first paragraph, that does not mean that for me one of the best spinosaurus made by a toy brand and we must thank Papo for his titanic effort in the realization of this figure.

It is true that many figures of Papo follow a philosophy of modern or avant-garde art as it happens with his baryonyx but sincerely this spinosaurus of Papo 2019 with the inaccuracies (tail of eel) observed by the members of the forum is a real dinosaur that has nothing to do with other figures of the same brand.

My thoughts exactly , if you were to ask someone who doesn't know much about dinosaurs except From seeing them on  films or ask someone who doesn't give a heck about dinosaurs , and you show them Papo , schleich , safari , collectA and rebor , 99% of them would say rebor and Papo stomps the other 3 . In terms of detail and realism , it's not even a contest

Also,it's not that I hate Papo.I have some Papo figures in my collection,and I think their sculptor has a lot of talent,but I'm not interested in their monster dinosaurs and their high price.

You seem quite vocal for someone that doesn't dislike Papo and calling their creations "monster" is a bit disrespectful. Papo models are more scientific than monster with a few inaccurate embellishments here and there (what company doesn't have inaccuracies, case-in-point WS's Styracosaurus horns or Eofauna opting for older skull reconstruction for the Giga). It's been this way for a few years already minus some obvious movie cash-ins like the Dimorphodon. I'm sure the Pentaceratops is a movie monster too using what passes as logic these days. The real reason is the high price under the guise of "just look at these monstrosities, oh my!".

Are you a spokesman for Papo, by any chance?

[tanystropheus]

Scientifically, the spinosaurus versions of Collecta, Schleich and Safari are superior. But honestly the one that I like the most for its details is undoubtedly Papo's (which may be in the background with the versions of Rebor and PNSO).

I sincerely know that it is not a scientific figure but I really like the spinosaurus of Papo version of 2019. I understand that many members of the forum do not like Papo for his modern paleoartistic style but honestly I am very happy with the spinosaurus of Papo and honestly it is one of the best made by a toy company and rivals with resin versions, although I also have to admit that they are more precise and superfluous also those of the three companies mentioned in my first paragraph, that does not mean that for me one of the best spinosaurus made by a toy brand and we must thank Papo for his titanic effort in the realization of this figure.

It is true that many figures of Papo follow a philosophy of modern or avant-garde art as it happens with his baryonyx but sincerely this spinosaurus of Papo 2019 with the inaccuracies (tail of eel) observed by the members of the forum is a real dinosaur that has nothing to do with other figures of the same brand.

My thoughts exactly , if you were to ask someone who doesn't know much about dinosaurs except From seeing them on  films or ask someone who doesn't give a heck about dinosaurs , and you show them Papo , schleich , safari , collectA and rebor , 99% of them would say rebor and Papo stomps the other 3 . In terms of detail and realism , it's not even a contest

Also,it's not that I hate Papo.I have some Papo figures in my collection,and I think their sculptor has a lot of talent,but I'm not interested in their monster dinosaurs and their high price.

You seem quite vocal for someone that doesn't dislike Papo and calling their creations "monster" is a bit disrespectful. Papo models are more scientific than monster with a few inaccurate embellishments here and there (what company doesn't have inaccuracies, case-in-point WS's Styracosaurus horns or Eofauna opting for older skull reconstruction for the Giga). It's been this way for a few years already minus some obvious movie cash-ins like the Dimorphodon. I'm sure the Pentaceratops is a movie monster too using what passes as logic these days. The real reason is the high price under the guise of "just look at these monstrosities, oh my!".

Are you a spokesman for Papo, by any chance?

I am the sculptor that made the Amargasaurus  j/k

[Joey]

Scientifically, the spinosaurus versions of Collecta, Schleich and Safari are superior. But honestly the one that I like the most for its details is undoubtedly Papo's (which may be in the background with the versions of Rebor and PNSO).

I sincerely know that it is not a scientific figure but I really like the spinosaurus of Papo version of 2019. I understand that many members of the forum do not like Papo for his modern paleoartistic style but honestly I am very happy with the spinosaurus of Papo and honestly it is one of the best made by a toy company and rivals with resin versions, although I also have to admit that they are more precise and superfluous also those of the three companies mentioned in my first paragraph, that does not mean that for me one of the best spinosaurus made by a toy brand and we must thank Papo for his titanic effort in the realization of this figure.

It is true that many figures of Papo follow a philosophy of modern or avant-garde art as it happens with his baryonyx but sincerely this spinosaurus of Papo 2019 with the inaccuracies (tail of eel) observed by the members of the forum is a real dinosaur that has nothing to do with other figures of the same brand.

My thoughts exactly , if you were to ask someone who doesn't know much about dinosaurs except From seeing them on  films or ask someone who doesn't give a heck about dinosaurs , and you show them Papo , schleich , safari , collectA and rebor , 99% of them would say rebor and Papo stomps the other 3 . In terms of detail and realism , it's not even a contest

Also,it's not that I hate Papo.I have some Papo figures in my collection,and I think their sculptor has a lot of talent,but I'm not interested in their monster dinosaurs and their high price.

You seem quite vocal for someone that doesn't dislike Papo and calling their creations "monster" is a bit disrespectful. Papo models are more scientific than monster with a few inaccurate embellishments here and there (what company doesn't have inaccuracies, case-in-point WS's Styracosaurus horns or Eofauna opting for older skull reconstruction for the Giga). It's been this way for a few years already minus some obvious movie cash-ins like the Dimorphodon. I'm sure the Pentaceratops is a movie monster too using what passes as logic these days. The real reason is the high price under the guise of "just look at these monstrosities, oh my!".

Are you a spokesman for Papo, by any chance?

I am the sculptor that made the Amargasaurus  j/k

 

[stargatedalek]

I, for one, love the aesthetics of a more salamander-like tail. Its a nice change of pace.

Though to be honest the Todd Marshall Spino remains my favorite Spino look. To me the spikes have always appeared more like the whiskers on wobbegong shark. Something soft and frayed looking, possibly as a camouflage adaptation, more than actual spikes. Hmm, its a good look, would love a toy that more closely resembled it.

Agreed, beyond the croc tail being a pet peeve I just genuinely like this tail aesthetically.

Fair enough, I can certainly see the appeal of the spines though I prefer them used more sparingly (ala Papo Baryonyx or Allosaurus). I was a bit to harsh earlier.

Also,it's not that I hate Papo.I have some Papo figures in my collection,and I think their sculptor has a lot of talent,but I'm not interested in their monster dinosaurs and their high price.

You seem quite vocal for someone that doesn't dislike Papo and calling their creations "monster" is a bit disrespectful. Papo models are more scientific than monster with a few inaccurate embellishments here and there (what company doesn't have inaccuracies, case-in-point WS's Styracosaurus horns or Eofauna opting for older skull reconstruction for the Giga). It's been this way for a few years already minus some obvious movie cash-ins like the Dimorphodon. I'm sure the Pentaceratops is a movie monster too using what passes as logic these days. The real reason is the high price under the guise of "just look at these monstrosities, oh my!".

While I certainly agree they are more monster than animal, it's important to remember that this is the norm in dinosaur reconstruction and isn't something exclusive to Papo (or toys) in any way. Nor is it fair to phrase statements that make it sound like Papo is designing them this way solely to pander to a given audience, they are designed this way because it's the art-style the sculptor prefers. Saying Papo dinosaurs are "more monster than animal", while an accurate statement, is one people should try to remember isn't fitting as an insult and can be easily turned on almost any line if you were to pick and chose examples.

Almost every line has varying accuracy, some of this is due to bad advice from consultants (Safari Carnegie line comes to mind), some from production necessity, some from lack of knowledge, and some from aesthetic preference.

All of that being said, I would say that the Papo Pentaceratops is "more monster than animal" relative to contemporary reconstructions, and also that that isn't an inherently bad thing. Papo makes their design decisions based on aesthetics, and that they commit fully or at least nearly so to this is admirable. I for one certainly prefer it over inconsistent accuracy like with PNSO, who quite clearly deliberately stretches the boundaries of accuracy just as much as they feel like they can get away with whenever they make popular species. Now that is honest to goodness pandering.

*edit*
I felt I should expand on this a bit and say that being "more animal" wouldn't always mean "more accurate". CollectA ceratopsians are designed in a very naturalistic way, they are definitely "more animal" than their Papo counterparts, but they are not significantly more accurate than the Pentaceratops and have their own different issues with accuracy.

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

To clarify I would be fine with a fleshy tail, heck even feathers.  But I can't recall one animal with a similar genetic background to Spinosaurus that has a tail liked a boney fish.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. The fin does not have visible spines, it looks more like an eel or salamander.

Neither crocodiles nor birds share a common aquatic ancestor with Spinosaurus, so their genetic relation is irrelevant in terms of determining aquatic adaptations. We should forego them in favor of animals that are more similar anatomically.

If whales seem like a stretch I don't blame you, but what about Mosasaurs, or Salamanders? I think Salamanders are probably the best analogues we have anatomically for Spinosaurus tail (though fully aquatic animals are likely a better match behaviorally).

Of all heavily aquatic animals only a handful did not develop tail fins (and I would argue crocodiles themselves did to an extent).

I'm mostly genuinely confused that so many are okay with this feature when we complain about Jurassic Park/World so much. I recall just a few years ago when no one approved of the Todd Marshall look and that was at least plausible.

That was more about the look being overused, with the excessive spines feeling like a particularly cringey play on the animals name with no logical reason for them.

The new Papo's Spinosaurus tail as well as I can see it, admittedly I can't tell what exactly is going on from those red lines to the yellow fishy tail.   A bit OT, but it also it appears there is some sort of tyrannosaur back there on a shelf highlighted in green..


I'm not sure I'm reading you right..we should ignore the closest examples we have of related ( albeit distantly ) animals in favor of anything that might share a similar environment?  Even just trying to puzzle out Spinosaurus' weird anatomy...it's almost impossible to say just what it might be like..that said fish or mammalian parts on dinosaurs just seem wrong.  I could see reptilian or avian characteristics much more. Mosasaurs we aren't 100% sure about them still, though a thin paddle like tail is probable.  Some other dinosaurs have similar flat tails in the bones, like hadrosaurs, but we don't flatten them out and assume an aquatic lifestyle. We don't really know how aquatic spinosaurus was, we can guess, but that's about it.  Discussing anything too scientific in regards to a specimen many have said needs revisions is probably unwise.  My original complaint stemmed from an artistic choice I don't understand or agree with that, for me, ruins an otherwise impressive sculpt.  I do plan to get one, I have all the other Papos, but I might modify that tail a bit.


Just because something is overused doesn't make it wrong though. I think a lot of people get hyped about something new just for the sake of it being new, lord knows I do at times. Todd also did all his theropods with spines, not just Spinosaurus.

[Syndicate Bias]

I, for one, love the aesthetics of a more salamander-like tail. Its a nice change of pace.

Though to be honest the Todd Marshall Spino remains my favorite Spino look. To me the spikes have always appeared more like the whiskers on wobbegong shark. Something soft and frayed looking, possibly as a camouflage adaptation, more than actual spikes. Hmm, its a good look, would love a toy that more closely resembled it.

Agreed, beyond the croc tail being a pet peeve I just genuinely like this tail aesthetically.

Fair enough, I can certainly see the appeal of the spines though I prefer them used more sparingly (ala Papo Baryonyx or Allosaurus). I was a bit to harsh earlier.

Also,it's not that I hate Papo.I have some Papo figures in my collection,and I think their sculptor has a lot of talent,but I'm not interested in their monster dinosaurs and their high price.

You seem quite vocal for someone that doesn't dislike Papo and calling their creations "monster" is a bit disrespectful. Papo models are more scientific than monster with a few inaccurate embellishments here and there (what company doesn't have inaccuracies, case-in-point WS's Styracosaurus horns or Eofauna opting for older skull reconstruction for the Giga). It's been this way for a few years already minus some obvious movie cash-ins like the Dimorphodon. I'm sure the Pentaceratops is a movie monster too using what passes as logic these days. The real reason is the high price under the guise of "just look at these monstrosities, oh my!".

While I certainly agree they are more monster than animal, it's important to remember that this is the norm in dinosaur reconstruction and isn't something exclusive to Papo (or toys) in any way. Nor is it fair to phrase statements that make it sound like Papo is designing them this way solely to pander to a given audience, they are designed this way because it's the art-style the sculptor prefers. Saying Papo dinosaurs are "more monster than animal", while an accurate statement, is one people should try to remember isn't fitting as an insult and can be easily turned on almost any line if you were to pick and chose examples.

Almost every line has varying accuracy, some of this is due to bad advice from consultants (Safari Carnegie line comes to mind), some from production necessity, some from lack of knowledge, and some from aesthetic preference.

All of that being said, I would say that the Papo Pentaceratops is "more monster than animal" relative to contemporary reconstructions, and also that that isn't an inherently bad thing. Papo makes their design decisions based on aesthetics, and that they commit fully or at least nearly so to this is admirable. I for one certainly prefer it over inconsistent accuracy like with PNSO, who quite clearly deliberately stretches the boundaries of accuracy just as much as they feel like they can get away with whenever they make popular species. Now that is honest to goodness pandering.

*edit*
I felt I should expand on this a bit and say that being "more animal" wouldn't always mean "more accurate". CollectA ceratopsians are designed in a very naturalistic way, they are definitely "more animal" than their Papo counterparts, but they are not significantly more accurate than the Pentaceratops and have their own different issues with accuracy.

I feel like there's some bias when it comes to CollectA and Safari and Eofauna and Schleich when Papo or Rebor are involved. It's fine and all until the same people who critisise them can't take the criticism their favourite companies get. I've been here for a little bit, but enough to see how the waves move when it comes to certain brands.

One thing that puzzles me is how Resin Kits or other high end figures/models don't get this much criticism like the more affordable and rather cheap papo and rebor figures I mean just look at the prices for kits.


Anyways I'm no spino expert but isn't this spino as accurate (which isn't the spinosaurus still a mystery of how it may have actually looked like anyways?) as many of its reconstructed versions in other models? Aside from proportions and the obvious ever so popular shrink wrapping almost every model has.

Edit:
That's an odd looking papo 2019 Giganotosaurus. I could've sworn the surprise limited edition was supposed to be the Giga 

[tanystropheus]

I, for one, love the aesthetics of a more salamander-like tail. Its a nice change of pace.

Though to be honest the Todd Marshall Spino remains my favorite Spino look. To me the spikes have always appeared more like the whiskers on wobbegong shark. Something soft and frayed looking, possibly as a camouflage adaptation, more than actual spikes. Hmm, its a good look, would love a toy that more closely resembled it.

Agreed, beyond the croc tail being a pet peeve I just genuinely like this tail aesthetically.

Fair enough, I can certainly see the appeal of the spines though I prefer them used more sparingly (ala Papo Baryonyx or Allosaurus). I was a bit to harsh earlier.

Also,it's not that I hate Papo.I have some Papo figures in my collection,and I think their sculptor has a lot of talent,but I'm not interested in their monster dinosaurs and their high price.

You seem quite vocal for someone that doesn't dislike Papo and calling their creations "monster" is a bit disrespectful. Papo models are more scientific than monster with a few inaccurate embellishments here and there (what company doesn't have inaccuracies, case-in-point WS's Styracosaurus horns or Eofauna opting for older skull reconstruction for the Giga). It's been this way for a few years already minus some obvious movie cash-ins like the Dimorphodon. I'm sure the Pentaceratops is a movie monster too using what passes as logic these days. The real reason is the high price under the guise of "just look at these monstrosities, oh my!".

All of that being said, I would say that the Papo Pentaceratops is "more monster than animal" relative to contemporary reconstructions, and also that that isn't an inherently bad thing. Papo makes their design decisions based on aesthetics, and that they commit fully or at least nearly so to this is admirable. I for one certainly prefer it over inconsistent accuracy like with PNSO, who quite clearly deliberately stretches the boundaries of accuracy just as much as they feel like they can get away with whenever they make popular species. Now that is honest to goodness pandering.

Yeah, but what does it mean to be a "monster"? The Pentaceratops looks like a general body design for a Pentaceratops. Sure the pose is a bit over-the-top (assuming it can't be arranged any other ways) and it may or may not have exaggerated features (I'm no Penta expert) but it took my brain no less than a split second to recognize it as a Pentaceratops. It may not be the most accurate Penta but for all practical purposes it fulfills our understanding of what constitutes a Penta at the basic level.

Also, why hasn't anyone called out PNSO's Lufengosaurus as a monster? I would argue that the Lufengosaurus is far more monster than Papo's Penta or Spinosaurus aegyptiacus. I'm not even sure how the word monster is being used in this discussion as Hollywood tropes do not use the term monster in this regard. I have a hunch that we are stepping more into some sort of nebulous philosophical territory with the term...

[stargatedalek]

I'm not sure I'm reading you right..we should ignore the closest examples we have of related ( albeit distantly ) animals in favor of anything that might share a similar environment?

Anatomy, not environment. Think of it this way:
-Birds are out because their tails are so small relative to Spinosaurus, they are clearly not physically capable of serving the same function.
-Crocodilian scutes are out because we know the common ancestor of Spinosaurus and crocodiles did not have them.

Therefore, the "norm" for aquatic animals with long tails should take precedence over birds and crocodiles, genetic relations in this case be damned.

As for how aquatic Spinosaurus was, isotopes show it spent the majority of its time in water, muscle atrophy shows the legs were not used for supporting the animals weight often or for extended periods, only confirmed prey are all large fish, and its remains come from a coastal mangrove forest with near identical remains existing on the opposite shore of the Atlantic ("Oxalaia"). It spent a great deal of time in salt water, and hunted large fish, possibly even entering open ocean deliberately. Whether Spinosaurus was more akin to a puffin, spending months at sea and returning to reproduce, or more like seals returning to land frequently, we may never know, but we do know it wasn't behaving like a crocodile.

Again, I'm just talking accuracy here, not aesthetics.

I'm looking and I'm not seeing those yellow highlighted fin rays in the pictures. It just looks like resolution distorting the colours to me.

Yeah, but what does it mean to be a "monster". The Pentaceratops looks like a general body design for a Pentaceratops. Sure the pose is a bit over-the-top (assuming it can't be arranged any other ways) and it may or may not have exaggerated features (I'm no Penta expert) but it took my brain no less than a split second to recognize it as a Pentaceratops. It may not be the most accurate Penta but for all purposes it fulfills our understanding of what constitutes a Penta at the base level.

Also, why hasn't anyone called out PNSO's Lufengosaurus as a monster. I would argue that the Lufengosaurus is far more monster than Papo's Penta or Spinosaurus aegyptiacus. I'm not even sure how the word monster is being used in this discussion as Hollywood tropes do not use the term monster in this regard. I have a hunch that we are stepping more into some sort of philosophical territory with the term...

Being a "monster" as opposed to an "animal" is about dramatics vs naturalism, accuracy not involved. The Papo Pentaceratops is meant to invoke our pre-existing stereotypes, to make us picture the pop-culture image of a ceratopsian and immediately picture the figure as a powerful, elephantine, beast about to gore into a theropod. Compare the CollectA ones, meant to invoke imagery of antelopes or similar wildlife (most often through their colour-schemes). And yet despite this I would say the Papo is more accurate.

That Lufengosaurus is a total monster! It looks like a zombie! Winston is even worse imo, given their first rex was overall highly accurate.