Papo 2020 Hopes & Dreams

[Syndicate Bias]

How can you be "biased" towards the truth? Also you claim that Papo is inaccurate (at least I think that's what you said) but then claim that their anatomy is among the best in the business, which it demonstrably isn't.
That being said, while they have gotten a lot better in terms of accuracy, Papo's entire business model is selling cartoonishly-proportioned movie monsters to people who either don't know better or don't care, rather than producing real animals.

I put quotes on the word "scientific". As a student of paleontology, I don't think there is absolute truth in the restoration of prehistoric animal(In a sense, this is the truth). If you believe that there are absolute standards for the restoration of extinct animal, it is unscientific.We don't know what they should look like, we only know what they don't look like. Paleontology is not absolute and unsuspicional, and this is deliberately weakened by the readers of popular science reading. (It's worth noting that popular science workers still use a lot of vocabulary that "may" and "should"  in popular reading.) If you look at modern living things, you will find that the morphological diversity within the species, and the unity between the species will be greater than your imagine. From this point of view, the ratio of muscle anatomy and texture is more important than to the various parts of the body occupies in restoration- Because we can roughly know the muscle structure of these animals, they have the similar structure to modern relatives.
In any case, when restoring a prehistoric animal, we should first make it as an "animal", followed by a specific species. And most manufacturers can't even made an "animal." I am very curious about how you evaluate the anatomy of a product. In any case, I don't think that the PNSO T.rex with asymmetrical trochanter major or the CollectA product with a wider ilium than the thoracic cavity, or the Rebor T.rex that thigh muscle structure is completely wrong is more like a creature, which is just the most insignificant one of countless problems(What needs to be added is that in fact, Rebor's early products and PNSO products are from the same sculptor-J.S.Xiao, who works at Musee studio right now.). All of this has nothing to do with the brand's sales strategy, only related to the sculptor's production level. PAPO may be a manufacturer of cartoon toys, but there is no doubt that in terms of animals, it is better than many manufacturers specializing in scientific toys.

I can agree with this. Especially with proportions varying between animals. Just look at people in general some of us have longer legs or bigger heads and different proportions all around.

We're not 100% sure on how dinosaurs looked like exactly so.

[GojiraGuy1954]

Giganotosaurus
Daspletosaurus
Kosmoceratops
Supersaurus
Inostrancevia
Scutosaurus
Cave Lion
Amargasaurus resculpt
Spinosaurus repaint
"Blue" Velociraptor repaint

[REBOR_STUDIO]

How can you be "biased" towards the truth? Also you claim that Papo is inaccurate (at least I think that's what you said) but then claim that their anatomy is among the best in the business, which it demonstrably isn't.
That being said, while they have gotten a lot better in terms of accuracy, Papo's entire business model is selling cartoonishly-proportioned movie monsters to people who either don't know better or don't care, rather than producing real animals.

I put quotes on the word "scientific". As a student of paleontology, I don't think there is absolute truth in the restoration of prehistoric animal(In a sense, this is the truth). If you believe that there are absolute standards for the restoration of extinct animal, it is unscientific.We don't know what they should look like, we only know what they don't look like. Paleontology is not absolute and unsuspicional, and this is deliberately weakened by the readers of popular science reading. (It's worth noting that popular science workers still use a lot of vocabulary that "may" and "should"  in popular reading.) If you look at modern living things, you will find that the morphological diversity within the species, and the unity between the species will be greater than your imagine. From this point of view, the ratio of muscle anatomy and texture is more important than to the various parts of the body occupies in restoration- Because we can roughly know the muscle structure of these animals, they have the similar structure to modern relatives.
In any case, when restoring a prehistoric animal, we should first make it as an "animal", followed by a specific species. And most manufacturers can't even made an "animal." I am very curious about how you evaluate the anatomy of a product. In any case, I don't think that the PNSO T.rex with asymmetrical trochanter major or the CollectA product with a wider ilium than the thoracic cavity, or the Rebor T.rex that thigh muscle structure is completely wrong is more like a creature, which is just the most insignificant one of countless problems(What needs to be added is that in fact, Rebor's early products and PNSO products are from the same sculptor-J.S.Xiao, who works at Musee studio right now.). All of this has nothing to do with the brand's sales strategy, only related to the sculptor's production level. PAPO may be a manufacturer of cartoon toys, but there is no doubt that in terms of animals, it is better than many manufacturers specializing in scientific toys.

Wrong. When J.S.Xiao first came to us he knew nothing about dinosaur at all, we taught him everything patiently, email by email, photoshop by photoshop and we had to do this during midnight to 11AM every single day due to the time difference between the UK and China. Attached is a photo of the REBOR Acrocanthosaurus sculpt's early prototype, as you can see without our guidance he couldn't even find the correct positions of Acros' eyes, we still have lots of laughable photos of his early works and we don't mind sharing them here with you guys.

Then he left us and went to the higher bidder which was PNSO, didn't even have the courtesy to finish the Acro for us, well that's fine nothing personal just good business we got it and we did give him our best wishes, however we told him specifically that we do not wish to be used as leverage and do not want him to mention us elsewhere, as the formal employer we have the right to do so. But oh boy not only he couldn't keep his bl**dy mouth shut, do you guys even know how many nasty stuff he said about us behind our backs just to please people who hate us?

[postsaurischian]

Rebor's early products and PNSO products are from the same sculptor-J.S.Xiao, who works at Musee studio right now.).

When J.S.Xiao first came to us he knew nothing about dinosaur at all, we taught him everything patiently, email by email, photoshop by photoshop and we had to do this during midnight to 11AM every single day due to the time difference between the UK and China. Attached is a photo of the REBOR Acrocanthosaurus sculpt's early prototype, as you can see without our guidance he couldn't even find the correct positions of Acros' eyes, we still have lots of laughable photos of his early works and we don't mind sharing them here with you guys.

Then he left us and went to the higher bidder which was PNSO, .......

  Please clarify!
  All PNSO models have been sculpted by ZHAO Chuang.
  Are you guys saying that he and J.S.Xiao are the same person under a different name or what?
  I think ZHAO Chuang is among the greatest Dinosaur sculptors of our time and I can hardly believe what I'm reading here.

[stargatedalek]

A few things here:

How can you be "biased" towards the truth? Also you claim that Papo is inaccurate (at least I think that's what you said) but then claim that their anatomy is among the best in the business, which it demonstrably isn't.
That being said, while they have gotten a lot better in terms of accuracy, Papo's entire business model is selling cartoonishly-proportioned movie monsters to people who either don't know better or don't care, rather than producing real animals.

I put quotes on the word "scientific". As a student of paleontology, I don't think there is absolute truth in the restoration of prehistoric animal(In a sense, this is the truth). If you believe that there are absolute standards for the restoration of extinct animal, it is unscientific.We don't know what they should look like, we only know what they don't look like. Paleontology is not absolute and unsuspicional, and this is deliberately weakened by the readers of popular science reading. (It's worth noting that popular science workers still use a lot of vocabulary that "may" and "should"  in popular reading.) If you look at modern living things, you will find that the morphological diversity within the species, and the unity between the species will be greater than your imagine. From this point of view, the ratio of muscle anatomy and texture is more important than to the various parts of the body occupies in restoration- Because we can roughly know the muscle structure of these animals, they have the similar structure to modern relatives.
In any case, when restoring a prehistoric animal, we should first make it as an "animal", followed by a specific species. And most manufacturers can't even made an "animal." I am very curious about how you evaluate the anatomy of a product. In any case, I don't think that the PNSO T.rex with asymmetrical trochanter major or the CollectA product with a wider ilium than the thoracic cavity, or the Rebor T.rex that thigh muscle structure is completely wrong is more like a creature, which is just the most insignificant one of countless problems(What needs to be added is that in fact, Rebor's early products and PNSO products are from the same sculptor-J.S.Xiao, who works at Musee studio right now.). All of this has nothing to do with the brand's sales strategy, only related to the sculptor's production level. PAPO may be a manufacturer of cartoon toys, but there is no doubt that in terms of animals, it is better than many manufacturers specializing in scientific toys.

There is an absolute truth in reconstructing extinct animals. We don't always know what that whole truth is, but there is always an absolute truth. We know parts, in many cases the vast majority of the parts, and not following those parts is therefore not faithfully reconstructing the animal.

To say there is not an absolute truth is what is truthfully unscientific. There are many, many cases where paleontology is an absolute science, just as the case is with modern zoology.

Variation within species is a lot, lot smaller than you seem to be making it out to be. If differences so comparatively minimal as we see in for example orca populations are enough to create controversy over whether to name them as a new species than something so truly distinct, bizarre, and frankly unnatural as a specimen matching any of the Papo figures would be an entirely new genus, at least.

One comparison I've heard is that Papo figures look like living movie monsters, whereas CollectA figures look like mounted specimens of extinct animals. I disagree with it, but I can understand the intention of this comparison and acknowledge it.

Your statement was not of an opinion, you made the claim that Papo figures were more accurate because they resembled living animals more than the fossil remains. And it's bunk. That is not how paleontology works, frankly it's not how scientific reconstruction in any field (including scientific references for modern animals) works. Accuracy is about working within the lines of what we know to be truth, not playing off of the general public's preconceptions by catering to the lowest common denominator of pop-culture standards!



We've seen statues and sculptures made by ZHAO Chuang for museums and art shows dating back years before REBOR appeared on the market. So either PNSO has a second secret sculptor, or someone is lying. REBOR you may want to question the legitimacy of your contacts claiming to represent things happening at PNSO.



As for Papo, they may not be accurate, at all, in any context, any of their figures, but it's hard to deny they have a knack for interesting renditions of movie monsters. I would like to see them capitalize on this, a Jurassic Park based Gallimimus might be a nice choice. Or for something more original, perhaps they could do cryptids or mythological animals reconstructed as if they were hypothetical extinct animals.

[Loon]

I may be biased in this regard, but I would love to see a protoceratops from Papo; it's been a while since we got a little guy from them. Also, I think a new large stegosaurus from them would be great.

[Shonisaurus]

I may be biased in this regard, but I would love to see a protoceratops from Papo; it's been a while since we got a little guy from them. Also, I think a new large stegosaurus from them would be great.

I totally agree I would like a protoceratops or a chasmosaurus and without articulated jaws, by Papo and in case of making ceraptosides with articulated jaws that the seams are not noticed as the Collecta brand seems to have done perfectly and that those jaws are stable, it is say do not give up as happens with any of its theropods. I say it with all the love in the world but if a protoceratops without an articulated jaw depends on me, it would be great.

[REBOR_STUDIO]

Rebor's early products and PNSO products are from the same sculptor-J.S.Xiao, who works at Musee studio right now.).

When J.S.Xiao first came to us he knew nothing about dinosaur at all, we taught him everything patiently, email by email, photoshop by photoshop and we had to do this during midnight to 11AM every single day due to the time difference between the UK and China. Attached is a photo of the REBOR Acrocanthosaurus sculpt's early prototype, as you can see without our guidance he couldn't even find the correct positions of Acros' eyes, we still have lots of laughable photos of his early works and we don't mind sharing them here with you guys.

Then he left us and went to the higher bidder which was PNSO, .......

  Please clarify!
  All PNSO models have been sculpted by ZHAO Chuang.
  Are you guys saying that he and J.S.Xiao are the same person under a different name or what?
  I think ZHAO Chuang is among the greatest Dinosaur sculptors of our time and I can hardly believe what I'm reading here.

Zhao is a great painter but not a sculptor nor did him claim that all those sculpts were done by himself anywhere so you guys may misunderstood him. J.S.Xiao was hired by PNSO and sculpted many pieces such as T-rex Wilson, Spinosaurus，Triceratops，the Family Zoo line and juvenile dinosaurs with Zhao being the art director behind all these products(late 2015-2017). Then Xiao became conceited and thought that Zhao has stolen his fame so he started disobeying Zhao, working on his own projects e.g. Diabloceratops and Carnotaurus, talking bad things about Zhao behind his back while still being paid by him. Zhao tried to reason with him but Xiao was full of himself, also at the same time (late 2017-2018) PNSO has mastered digital sculpting techniques so one day Xiao suddently found out that he has become jobless-dun dun duuuuun! What a surprise.

Then he tried to come back to us and we said nope.

[stargatedalek]

As skeptical as I am, I must admit it makes some kind of sense. Those particular products from PNSO always stuck out to me as stylistically different (and speaking personally, I wasn't a fan of them, Wilson especially). It could also explain why those were delayed whereas the later waves of miniature dinosaurs and the new medium sized line were not.

[Vidusaurus]

A few things here:

How can you be "biased" towards the truth? Also you claim that Papo is inaccurate (at least I think that's what you said) but then claim that their anatomy is among the best in the business, which it demonstrably isn't.
That being said, while they have gotten a lot better in terms of accuracy, Papo's entire business model is selling cartoonishly-proportioned movie monsters to people who either don't know better or don't care, rather than producing real animals.

I put quotes on the word "scientific". As a student of paleontology, I don't think there is absolute truth in the restoration of prehistoric animal(In a sense, this is the truth). If you believe that there are absolute standards for the restoration of extinct animal, it is unscientific.We don't know what they should look like, we only know what they don't look like. Paleontology is not absolute and unsuspicional, and this is deliberately weakened by the readers of popular science reading. (It's worth noting that popular science workers still use a lot of vocabulary that "may" and "should"  in popular reading.) If you look at modern living things, you will find that the morphological diversity within the species, and the unity between the species will be greater than your imagine. From this point of view, the ratio of muscle anatomy and texture is more important than to the various parts of the body occupies in restoration- Because we can roughly know the muscle structure of these animals, they have the similar structure to modern relatives.
In any case, when restoring a prehistoric animal, we should first make it as an "animal", followed by a specific species. And most manufacturers can't even made an "animal." I am very curious about how you evaluate the anatomy of a product. In any case, I don't think that the PNSO T.rex with asymmetrical trochanter major or the CollectA product with a wider ilium than the thoracic cavity, or the Rebor T.rex that thigh muscle structure is completely wrong is more like a creature, which is just the most insignificant one of countless problems(What needs to be added is that in fact, Rebor's early products and PNSO products are from the same sculptor-J.S.Xiao, who works at Musee studio right now.). All of this has nothing to do with the brand's sales strategy, only related to the sculptor's production level. PAPO may be a manufacturer of cartoon toys, but there is no doubt that in terms of animals, it is better than many manufacturers specializing in scientific toys.

There is an absolute truth in reconstructing extinct animals. We don't always know what that whole truth is, but there is always an absolute truth. We know parts, in many cases the vast majority of the parts, and not following those parts is therefore not faithfully reconstructing the animal.

To say there is not an absolute truth is what is truthfully unscientific. There are many, many cases where paleontology is an absolute science, just as the case is with modern zoology.

Variation within species is a lot, lot smaller than you seem to be making it out to be. If differences so comparatively minimal as we see in for example orca populations are enough to create controversy over whether to name them as a new species than something so truly distinct, bizarre, and frankly unnatural as a specimen matching any of the Papo figures would be an entirely new genus, at least.

One comparison I've heard is that Papo figures look like living movie monsters, whereas CollectA figures look like mounted specimens of extinct animals. I disagree with it, but I can understand the intention of this comparison and acknowledge it.

Your statement was not of an opinion, you made the claim that Papo figures were more accurate because they resembled living animals more than the fossil remains. And it's bunk. That is not how paleontology works, frankly it's not how scientific reconstruction in any field (including scientific references for modern animals) works. Accuracy is about working within the lines of what we know to be truth, not playing off of the general public's preconceptions by catering to the lowest common denominator of pop-culture standards!

...

As for Papo, they may not be accurate, at all, in any context, any of their figures, but it's hard to deny they have a knack for interesting renditions of movie monsters. I would like to see them capitalize on this, a Jurassic Park based Gallimimus might be a nice choice. Or for something more original, perhaps they could do cryptids or mythological animals reconstructed as if they were hypothetical extinct animals.

Thank you stargatedalek, at least someone gets it. I have no problem with them explicitly trying to capitalise off of the fame of Jurassic Park, there are a lot of companies doing that, but when they use the same inaccurate style to reconstruct animals that never appeared in the films and then claim that this is what the animal actually looked like, then it becomes a problem. As you said, claiming individual variation between species is all well and good, but the vast majority of Papo's inaccuracies would see their species placed in entirely different families to the real animal, let alone different subspecies!

[postsaurischian]

Zhao is a great painter but not a sculptor nor did him claim that all those sculpts were done by himself anywhere so you guys may misunderstood him. J.S.Xiao was hired by PNSO and sculpted many pieces such as T-rex Wilson, Spinosaurus，Triceratops，the Family Zoo line and juvenile dinosaurs with Zhao being the art director behind all these products(late 2015-2017). Then Xiao became conceited and thought that Zhao has stolen his fame so he started disobeying Zhao, working on his own projects e.g. Diabloceratops and Carnotaurus, talking bad things about Zhao behind his back while still being paid by him. Zhao tried to reason with him but Xiao was full of himself, also at the same time (late 2017-2018) PNSO has mastered digital sculpting techniques so one day Xiao suddently found out that he has become jobless-dun dun duuuuun! What a surprise.

Then he tried to come back to us and we said nope.

Thanks for the clarification! I admit I didn't know anything about this and I'm surprised that J.S.Xiao's name hadn't been mentioned on any of the mentioned models' packages - something many producers fail to do (you, too). So this is not a case of misunderstanding, it's more a case of misleading. I can understand that some artists do not like that. As stargatedalek already wrote, your explanation makes sense. There is a difference in style, which I thought was a development process. PNSO's labeling leaves the impression that ZHAO Chuang is their only sculpting artist.
One more question: You mentioned M-See's Diabloceratops and Carnotaurus. On both packages it says that the artist is Muxi. Is that a pseudonym of J.S.Xiao?

[Mirroraptor]

How can you be "biased" towards the truth? Also you claim that Papo is inaccurate (at least I think that's what you said) but then claim that their anatomy is among the best in the business, which it demonstrably isn't.
That being said, while they have gotten a lot better in terms of accuracy, Papo's entire business model is selling cartoonishly-proportioned movie monsters to people who either don't know better or don't care, rather than producing real animals.

I put quotes on the word "scientific". As a student of paleontology, I don't think there is absolute truth in the restoration of prehistoric animal(In a sense, this is the truth). If you believe that there are absolute standards for the restoration of extinct animal, it is unscientific.We don't know what they should look like, we only know what they don't look like. Paleontology is not absolute and unsuspicional, and this is deliberately weakened by the readers of popular science reading. (It's worth noting that popular science workers still use a lot of vocabulary that "may" and "should"  in popular reading.) If you look at modern living things, you will find that the morphological diversity within the species, and the unity between the species will be greater than your imagine. From this point of view, the ratio of muscle anatomy and texture is more important than to the various parts of the body occupies in restoration- Because we can roughly know the muscle structure of these animals, they have the similar structure to modern relatives.
In any case, when restoring a prehistoric animal, we should first make it as an "animal", followed by a specific species. And most manufacturers can't even made an "animal." I am very curious about how you evaluate the anatomy of a product. In any case, I don't think that the PNSO T.rex with asymmetrical trochanter major or the CollectA product with a wider ilium than the thoracic cavity, or the Rebor T.rex that thigh muscle structure is completely wrong is more like a creature, which is just the most insignificant one of countless problems(What needs to be added is that in fact, Rebor's early products and PNSO products are from the same sculptor-J.S.Xiao, who works at Musee studio right now.). All of this has nothing to do with the brand's sales strategy, only related to the sculptor's production level. PAPO may be a manufacturer of cartoon toys, but there is no doubt that in terms of animals, it is better than many manufacturers specializing in scientific toys.

Wrong. When J.S.Xiao first came to us he knew nothing about dinosaur at all, we taught him everything patiently, email by email, photoshop by photoshop and we had to do this during midnight to 11AM every single day due to the time difference between the UK and China. Attached is a photo of the REBOR Acrocanthosaurus sculpt's early prototype, as you can see without our guidance he couldn't even find the correct positions of Acros' eyes, we still have lots of laughable photos of his early works and we don't mind sharing them here with you guys.

Then he left us and went to the higher bidder which was PNSO, didn't even have the courtesy to finish the Acro for us, well that's fine nothing personal just good business we got it and we did give him our best wishes, however we told him specifically that we do not wish to be used as leverage and do not want him to mention us elsewhere, as the formal employer we have the right to do so. But oh boy not only he couldn't keep his bl**dy mouth shut, do you guys even know how many nasty stuff he said about us behind our backs just to please people who hate us?

Thank you for your clarification. Very honored to get the official answer. In fact, I still suspect that some of Musee Studio's work was done by someone other artist but not J.S.Xiao.
btw, REBOR is doing better today, please continue!

[Mirroraptor]

Zhao is a great painter but not a sculptor nor did him claim that all those sculpts were done by himself anywhere so you guys may misunderstood him. J.S.Xiao was hired by PNSO and sculpted many pieces such as T-rex Wilson, Spinosaurus，Triceratops，the Family Zoo line and juvenile dinosaurs with Zhao being the art director behind all these products(late 2015-2017). Then Xiao became conceited and thought that Zhao has stolen his fame so he started disobeying Zhao, working on his own projects e.g. Diabloceratops and Carnotaurus, talking bad things about Zhao behind his back while still being paid by him. Zhao tried to reason with him but Xiao was full of himself, also at the same time (late 2017-2018) PNSO has mastered digital sculpting techniques so one day Xiao suddently found out that he has become jobless-dun dun duuuuun! What a surprise.

Then he tried to come back to us and we said nope.

Thanks for the clarification! I admit I didn't know anything about this and I'm surprised that J.S.Xiao's name hadn't been mentioned on any of the mentioned models' packages - something many producers fail to do (you, too). So this is not a case of misunderstanding, it's more a case of misleading. I can understand that some artists do not like that. As stargatedalek already wrote, your explanation makes sense. There is a difference in style, which I thought was a development process. PNSO's labeling leaves the impression that ZHAO Chuang is their only sculpting artist.
One more question: You mentioned M-See's Diabloceratops and Carnotaurus. On both packages it says that the artist is Muxi. Is that a pseudonym of J.S.Xiao?

Mu-see（or Mu-Xi in homophonic） is J.S.Xiao's studio's name. I'm not sure if he is the only artist in the studio(the painter is Tison Zhang), when I asked, he always told me the work is by the whole studio but not exact artist.

[Mirroraptor]

A few things here:

How can you be "biased" towards the truth? Also you claim that Papo is inaccurate (at least I think that's what you said) but then claim that their anatomy is among the best in the business, which it demonstrably isn't.
That being said, while they have gotten a lot better in terms of accuracy, Papo's entire business model is selling cartoonishly-proportioned movie monsters to people who either don't know better or don't care, rather than producing real animals.

I put quotes on the word "scientific". As a student of paleontology, I don't think there is absolute truth in the restoration of prehistoric animal(In a sense, this is the truth). If you believe that there are absolute standards for the restoration of extinct animal, it is unscientific.We don't know what they should look like, we only know what they don't look like. Paleontology is not absolute and unsuspicional, and this is deliberately weakened by the readers of popular science reading. (It's worth noting that popular science workers still use a lot of vocabulary that "may" and "should"  in popular reading.) If you look at modern living things, you will find that the morphological diversity within the species, and the unity between the species will be greater than your imagine. From this point of view, the ratio of muscle anatomy and texture is more important than to the various parts of the body occupies in restoration- Because we can roughly know the muscle structure of these animals, they have the similar structure to modern relatives.
In any case, when restoring a prehistoric animal, we should first make it as an "animal", followed by a specific species. And most manufacturers can't even made an "animal." I am very curious about how you evaluate the anatomy of a product. In any case, I don't think that the PNSO T.rex with asymmetrical trochanter major or the CollectA product with a wider ilium than the thoracic cavity, or the Rebor T.rex that thigh muscle structure is completely wrong is more like a creature, which is just the most insignificant one of countless problems(What needs to be added is that in fact, Rebor's early products and PNSO products are from the same sculptor-J.S.Xiao, who works at Musee studio right now.). All of this has nothing to do with the brand's sales strategy, only related to the sculptor's production level. PAPO may be a manufacturer of cartoon toys, but there is no doubt that in terms of animals, it is better than many manufacturers specializing in scientific toys.

There is an absolute truth in reconstructing extinct animals. We don't always know what that whole truth is, but there is always an absolute truth. We know parts, in many cases the vast majority of the parts, and not following those parts is therefore not faithfully reconstructing the animal.

To say there is not an absolute truth is what is truthfully unscientific. There are many, many cases where paleontology is an absolute science, just as the case is with modern zoology.

Variation within species is a lot, lot smaller than you seem to be making it out to be. If differences so comparatively minimal as we see in for example orca populations are enough to create controversy over whether to name them as a new species than something so truly distinct, bizarre, and frankly unnatural as a specimen matching any of the Papo figures would be an entirely new genus, at least.

One comparison I've heard is that Papo figures look like living movie monsters, whereas CollectA figures look like mounted specimens of extinct animals. I disagree with it, but I can understand the intention of this comparison and acknowledge it.

Your statement was not of an opinion, you made the claim that Papo figures were more accurate because they resembled living animals more than the fossil remains. And it's bunk. That is not how paleontology works, frankly it's not how scientific reconstruction in any field (including scientific references for modern animals) works. Accuracy is about working within the lines of what we know to be truth, not playing off of the general public's preconceptions by catering to the lowest common denominator of pop-culture standards!



We've seen statues and sculptures made by ZHAO Chuang for museums and art shows dating back years before REBOR appeared on the market. So either PNSO has a second secret sculptor, or someone is lying. REBOR you may want to question the legitimacy of your contacts claiming to represent things happening at PNSO.



As for Papo, they may not be accurate, at all, in any context, any of their figures, but it's hard to deny they have a knack for interesting renditions of movie monsters. I would like to see them capitalize on this, a Jurassic Park based Gallimimus might be a nice choice. Or for something more original, perhaps they could do cryptids or mythological animals reconstructed as if they were hypothetical extinct animals.

There is no inherent conflict in our views. In the beginning, I also mentioned that we can know for sure what they are not look like. However, within a reasonable range, appropriate tolerance should be retained for the difference in the proportion of individual forms in the body. On the basis of respecting the morphological characters, artistic creation and processing will not make works "unscientific".
What we should note is that modern species taxonomy is full of hidden species, and this is a judgment entirely based on genetics rather than morphology. Whether genetics or morphology, it is full of uncertainty, and paleontological species do not belong to the same concept as modern biological species.
People who believed that paleontology, especially the restoration of paleontology, is a decisive science-often does not understand the methodology of paleontological classification.  In most paleontological phylogenetic tree, all characters features have the same weight, because without molecular biology evidence, we are not sure what characters are really important. It is for this reason that the taxonomy of dinosaurs becomes extremely unstable, and in the phylogenetic tree, the support rate of each branch becomes very low (always below 50%). Compared with the Lystrosauridae, the branch of the morphological phylogenetic tree has support rate over 80% or more.
For the method of reconstructing prehistoric creatures: I have to admit that in terms of prehistoric biological reconstruction, researchers are even more concerned about whether this artwork shows their new discoveries, not the value of the artwork itself. However, the truly outstanding artists of sci-art from all over the world must making their characters close to reality animals. We are appreciators when buying a model, we focus on whether the model itself is good enough. At this level, it is equally important to be close to real life and to characterize this extinct creature.

A few things here:

How can you be "biased" towards the truth? Also you claim that Papo is inaccurate (at least I think that's what you said) but then claim that their anatomy is among the best in the business, which it demonstrably isn't.
That being said, while they have gotten a lot better in terms of accuracy, Papo's entire business model is selling cartoonishly-proportioned movie monsters to people who either don't know better or don't care, rather than producing real animals.

I put quotes on the word "scientific". As a student of paleontology, I don't think there is absolute truth in the restoration of prehistoric animal(In a sense, this is the truth). If you believe that there are absolute standards for the restoration of extinct animal, it is unscientific.We don't know what they should look like, we only know what they don't look like. Paleontology is not absolute and unsuspicional, and this is deliberately weakened by the readers of popular science reading. (It's worth noting that popular science workers still use a lot of vocabulary that "may" and "should"  in popular reading.) If you look at modern living things, you will find that the morphological diversity within the species, and the unity between the species will be greater than your imagine. From this point of view, the ratio of muscle anatomy and texture is more important than to the various parts of the body occupies in restoration- Because we can roughly know the muscle structure of these animals, they have the similar structure to modern relatives.
In any case, when restoring a prehistoric animal, we should first make it as an "animal", followed by a specific species. And most manufacturers can't even made an "animal." I am very curious about how you evaluate the anatomy of a product. In any case, I don't think that the PNSO T.rex with asymmetrical trochanter major or the CollectA product with a wider ilium than the thoracic cavity, or the Rebor T.rex that thigh muscle structure is completely wrong is more like a creature, which is just the most insignificant one of countless problems(What needs to be added is that in fact, Rebor's early products and PNSO products are from the same sculptor-J.S.Xiao, who works at Musee studio right now.). All of this has nothing to do with the brand's sales strategy, only related to the sculptor's production level. PAPO may be a manufacturer of cartoon toys, but there is no doubt that in terms of animals, it is better than many manufacturers specializing in scientific toys.

There is an absolute truth in reconstructing extinct animals. We don't always know what that whole truth is, but there is always an absolute truth. We know parts, in many cases the vast majority of the parts, and not following those parts is therefore not faithfully reconstructing the animal.

To say there is not an absolute truth is what is truthfully unscientific. There are many, many cases where paleontology is an absolute science, just as the case is with modern zoology.

Variation within species is a lot, lot smaller than you seem to be making it out to be. If differences so comparatively minimal as we see in for example orca populations are enough to create controversy over whether to name them as a new species than something so truly distinct, bizarre, and frankly unnatural as a specimen matching any of the Papo figures would be an entirely new genus, at least.

One comparison I've heard is that Papo figures look like living movie monsters, whereas CollectA figures look like mounted specimens of extinct animals. I disagree with it, but I can understand the intention of this comparison and acknowledge it.

Your statement was not of an opinion, you made the claim that Papo figures were more accurate because they resembled living animals more than the fossil remains. And it's bunk. That is not how paleontology works, frankly it's not how scientific reconstruction in any field (including scientific references for modern animals) works. Accuracy is about working within the lines of what we know to be truth, not playing off of the general public's preconceptions by catering to the lowest common denominator of pop-culture standards!

...

As for Papo, they may not be accurate, at all, in any context, any of their figures, but it's hard to deny they have a knack for interesting renditions of movie monsters. I would like to see them capitalize on this, a Jurassic Park based Gallimimus might be a nice choice. Or for something more original, perhaps they could do cryptids or mythological animals reconstructed as if they were hypothetical extinct animals.

Thank you stargatedalek, at least someone gets it. I have no problem with them explicitly trying to capitalise off of the fame of Jurassic Park, there are a lot of companies doing that, but when they use the same inaccurate style to reconstruct animals that never appeared in the films and then claim that this is what the animal actually looked like, then it becomes a problem. As you said, claiming individual variation between species is all well and good, but the vast majority of Papo's inaccuracies would see their species placed in entirely different families to the real animal, let alone different subspecies!

For me, my emphasis on criticism is the lack of biologicality in the model statue. Muscle anatomical errors or stiff skin textures are unbearable mistakes for a living animal, and toy manufacturers who advertise their own "science" repeatedly make such mistakes. I have never stated that "only PAPO is correct", but I don't think PAPO should be classified as an entertainment author who is totally irresponsible for science.This still has nothing to do with a manufacturer's product strategy, only related to the artist level. For truly outstanding sculptors, whether they are making dinosaurs, monsters or modern animals, they can always grasp their styling characteristics quickly.

[Syndicate Bias]

Rebor's early products and PNSO products are from the same sculptor-J.S.Xiao, who works at Musee studio right now.).

When J.S.Xiao first came to us he knew nothing about dinosaur at all, we taught him everything patiently, email by email, photoshop by photoshop and we had to do this during midnight to 11AM every single day due to the time difference between the UK and China. Attached is a photo of the REBOR Acrocanthosaurus sculpt's early prototype, as you can see without our guidance he couldn't even find the correct positions of Acros' eyes, we still have lots of laughable photos of his early works and we don't mind sharing them here with you guys.

Then he left us and went to the higher bidder which was PNSO, .......

  Please clarify!
  All PNSO models have been sculpted by ZHAO Chuang.
  Are you guys saying that he and J.S.Xiao are the same person under a different name or what?
  I think ZHAO Chuang is among the greatest Dinosaur sculptors of our time and I can hardly believe what I'm reading here.

Zhao is a great painter but not a sculptor nor did him claim that all those sculpts were done by himself anywhere so you guys may misunderstood him. J.S.Xiao was hired by PNSO and sculpted many pieces such as T-rex Wilson, Spinosaurus，Triceratops，the Family Zoo line and juvenile dinosaurs with Zhao being the art director behind all these products(late 2015-2017). Then Xiao became conceited and thought that Zhao has stolen his fame so he started disobeying Zhao, working on his own projects e.g. Diabloceratops and Carnotaurus, talking bad things about Zhao behind his back while still being paid by him. Zhao tried to reason with him but Xiao was full of himself, also at the same time (late 2017-2018) PNSO has mastered digital sculpting techniques so one day Xiao suddently found out that he has become jobless-dun dun duuuuun! What a surprise.

Then he tried to come back to us and we said nope.

ok so what @REBOR_STUDIO  is actually saying is...


REBOR GNG Giganotosaurus 2020 because Papo won't deliver in 2020 yet again

[REBOR_STUDIO]

Zhao is a great painter but not a sculptor nor did him claim that all those sculpts were done by himself anywhere so you guys may misunderstood him. J.S.Xiao was hired by PNSO and sculpted many pieces such as T-rex Wilson, Spinosaurus，Triceratops，the Family Zoo line and juvenile dinosaurs with Zhao being the art director behind all these products(late 2015-2017). Then Xiao became conceited and thought that Zhao has stolen his fame so he started disobeying Zhao, working on his own projects e.g. Diabloceratops and Carnotaurus, talking bad things about Zhao behind his back while still being paid by him. Zhao tried to reason with him but Xiao was full of himself, also at the same time (late 2017-2018) PNSO has mastered digital sculpting techniques so one day Xiao suddently found out that he has become jobless-dun dun duuuuun! What a surprise.

Then he tried to come back to us and we said nope.

Thanks for the clarification! I admit I didn't know anything about this and I'm surprised that J.S.Xiao's name hadn't been mentioned on any of the mentioned models' packages - something many producers fail to do (you, too). So this is not a case of misunderstanding, it's more a case of misleading. I can understand that some artists do not like that. As stargatedalek already wrote, your explanation makes sense. There is a difference in style, which I thought was a development process. PNSO's labeling leaves the impression that ZHAO Chuang is their only sculpting artist.
One more question: You mentioned M-See's Diabloceratops and Carnotaurus. On both packages it says that the artist is Muxi. Is that a pseudonym of J.S.Xiao?

Corporations need no hero, it's a rather normal management strategy adopted by most companies in the world simply to protect themselves from their competitors, imagine you spent enormous amount of time, efforts and money on training a new guy then when he/she is finally able to generate profit for you he/she left for the higher bidder, how would you feel about the whole thing? Remember when Xiao worked for us he was a full time not a freelancer so there were company rules that need to be followed. Hope that makes sense.

[postsaurischian]

Zhao is a great painter but not a sculptor nor did him claim that all those sculpts were done by himself anywhere so you guys may misunderstood him. J.S.Xiao was hired by PNSO and sculpted many pieces such as T-rex Wilson, Spinosaurus，Triceratops，the Family Zoo line and juvenile dinosaurs with Zhao being the art director behind all these products(late 2015-2017). Then Xiao became conceited and thought that Zhao has stolen his fame so he started disobeying Zhao, working on his own projects e.g. Diabloceratops and Carnotaurus, talking bad things about Zhao behind his back while still being paid by him. Zhao tried to reason with him but Xiao was full of himself, also at the same time (late 2017-2018) PNSO has mastered digital sculpting techniques so one day Xiao suddently found out that he has become jobless-dun dun duuuuun! What a surprise.

Then he tried to come back to us and we said nope.

Thanks for the clarification! I admit I didn't know anything about this and I'm surprised that J.S.Xiao's name hadn't been mentioned on any of the mentioned models' packages - something many producers fail to do (you, too). So this is not a case of misunderstanding, it's more a case of misleading. I can understand that some artists do not like that. As stargatedalek already wrote, your explanation makes sense. There is a difference in style, which I thought was a development process. PNSO's labeling leaves the impression that ZHAO Chuang is their only sculpting artist.
One more question: You mentioned M-See's Diabloceratops and Carnotaurus. On both packages it says that the artist is Muxi. Is that a pseudonym of J.S.Xiao?

Corporations need no hero, it's a rather normal management strategy adopted by most companies in the world simply to protect themselves from their competitors, imagine you spent enormous amount of time, efforts and money on training a new guy then when he/she is finally able to generate profit for you he/she left for the higher bidder, how would you feel about the whole thing? Remember when Xiao worked for us he was a full time not a freelancer so there were company rules that need to be followed. Hope that makes sense.

Sorry, misunderstanding! Might be because I'm German and English is just my third language. I didn't want to defend the way Xiao behaved. Obviously he's not serious enough to work with.
I come from music and in music it's obligate that the musicians involved are mentioned on the album's cover. For Dinosaur figures I wish it was the same, especially when they come with boxes or papers that describe the figure and species.
If the production process is a corporation with no particular sculptor to point out I can see why there's no mentioning, but in PNSO's case I'm really surprised because they indeed left the impression that ZHAO Chuang was the sculptor of all their models. Or am I the only fool who thought so?

[REBOR_STUDIO]

Zhao is a great painter but not a sculptor nor did him claim that all those sculpts were done by himself anywhere so you guys may misunderstood him. J.S.Xiao was hired by PNSO and sculpted many pieces such as T-rex Wilson, Spinosaurus，Triceratops，the Family Zoo line and juvenile dinosaurs with Zhao being the art director behind all these products(late 2015-2017). Then Xiao became conceited and thought that Zhao has stolen his fame so he started disobeying Zhao, working on his own projects e.g. Diabloceratops and Carnotaurus, talking bad things about Zhao behind his back while still being paid by him. Zhao tried to reason with him but Xiao was full of himself, also at the same time (late 2017-2018) PNSO has mastered digital sculpting techniques so one day Xiao suddently found out that he has become jobless-dun dun duuuuun! What a surprise.

Then he tried to come back to us and we said nope.

Thanks for the clarification! I admit I didn't know anything about this and I'm surprised that J.S.Xiao's name hadn't been mentioned on any of the mentioned models' packages - something many producers fail to do (you, too). So this is not a case of misunderstanding, it's more a case of misleading. I can understand that some artists do not like that. As stargatedalek already wrote, your explanation makes sense. There is a difference in style, which I thought was a development process. PNSO's labeling leaves the impression that ZHAO Chuang is their only sculpting artist.
One more question: You mentioned M-See's Diabloceratops and Carnotaurus. On both packages it says that the artist is Muxi. Is that a pseudonym of J.S.Xiao?

Corporations need no hero, it's a rather normal management strategy adopted by most companies in the world simply to protect themselves from their competitors, imagine you spent enormous amount of time, efforts and money on training a new guy then when he/she is finally able to generate profit for you he/she left for the higher bidder, how would you feel about the whole thing? Remember when Xiao worked for us he was a full time not a freelancer so there were company rules that need to be followed. Hope that makes sense.

Sorry, misunderstanding! Might be because I'm German and English is just my third language. I didn't want to defend the way Xiao behaved. Obviously he's not serious enough to work with.
I come from music and in music it's obligate that the musicians involved are mentioned on the album's cover. For Dinosaur figures I wish it was the same, especially when they come with boxes or papers that describe the figure and species.
If the production process is a corporation with no particular sculptor to point out I can see why there's no mentioning, but in PNSO's case I'm really surprised because they indeed left the impression that ZHAO Chuang was the sculptor of all their models. Or am I the only fool who thought so?

Zhao is the Art Director of PNSO and the very soul of the brand therefore much more important than any of their artists, Xiao left yet PNSO is still functioning just fine. Again he never claimed all those sculpts were done by him nor tried to mislead people in any way. Let's put an end to this topic.

[postsaurischian]

Zhao is the Art Director of PNSO and the very soul of the brand therefore much more important than any of their artists, Xiao left yet PNSO is still functioning just fine. Again he never claimed all those sculpts were done by him nor tried to mislead people in any way. Let's put an end to this topic.

  You can put an end to it whenever you want to. I still think an artist's work should be credited.
  But yes, this is the wrong thread and I stop.

[Syndicate Bias]

So about that GnG Giganotosaurus 

Anyways Mapusaurus or Giga or Carcha for 2020 otherwise I'll have to drop 160 USD to get the Mapusaurus resin kit just like I had to get the Mo Models Carcha because neither Rebor nor Papo have done the other 3 of the big 5 *sigh*...one day 😔