Mattel--New for 2020

[austrosaurus]

Oh it's...not good from an accuracy standpoint, but that's just how it is with Jurassic Park merchandise. As an action figure I think I like it, I'm not super sold on the design but I think if I saw it in person I'd come around.

Don't know why you keep making these premature judgments regarding accuracy.

1. Mattel's Siats meekerorum is the most accurate representation of Siats meekerorum in the toy market because it's the only one.
2. Considering that it is an Allosaurid by default, it makes sense that Mattel would model it after it's very own Allosaurid models.
3. Aside from some scant vertebrae elements, there isn't much material discovered for a complete reconstruction, allowing considerable latitude with respect to creative license.
4. You don't know what you are talking about.

Don't know why you made a rude comment because I gave my opinion regarding accuracy.
1) Just because it's the only toy made of the animal doesn't mean it's automatically accurate by default.
2) As suspsy said, Siats was an neovenatorid allosauroid, not an allosaurid (which might not be a natural clade), and actually might even be a coelurosaur if it ends up being a megaraptoran after all.
3) Just because a species is fragmentary, doesn't mean that we get to just do whatever when we reconstruct them. If it's an allosauroid, it should look like an allosauroid. If it's a megaraptoran, it should look like a megaraptoran. It looks like neither.
4) I very clearly do know what I'm talking about, and besides, ad hominem attacks aren't within the spirit or rules of the forum.

[tanystropheus]

Oh it's...not good from an accuracy standpoint, but that's just how it is with Jurassic Park merchandise. As an action figure I think I like it, I'm not super sold on the design but I think if I saw it in person I'd come around.

Don't know why you keep making these premature judgments regarding accuracy.

1. Mattel's Siats meekerorum is the most accurate representation of Siats meekerorum in the toy market because it's the only one.
2. Considering that it is an Allosaurid by default, it makes sense that Mattel would model it after it's very own Allosaurid models.
3. Aside from some scant vertebrae elements, there isn't much material discovered for a complete reconstruction, allowing considerable latitude with respect to creative license.
4. You don't know what you are talking about.

Don't know why you made a rude comment because I gave my opinion regarding accuracy.
1) Just because it's the only toy made of the animal doesn't mean it's automatically accurate by default.
2) As suspsy said, Siats was an neovenatorid allosauroid, not an allosaurid (which might not be a natural clade), and actually might even be a coelurosaur if it ends up being a megaraptoran after all.
3) Just because a species is fragmentary, doesn't mean that we get to just do whatever when we reconstruct them. If it's an allosauroid, it should look like an allosauroid. If it's a megaraptoran, it should look like a megaraptoran. It looks like neither.
4) I very clearly do know what I'm talking about, and besides, ad hominem attacks aren't within the spirit or rules of the forum.

It's not a rude comment but statements that are associated with accuracy should be carefully worded or they tend to sway public opinion. REBOR and Papo are examples of companies that have demonstrated that they are willing to make products that are accurate. Obviously, there is a big market to be had with JP-style models as can be seen from the thousands of posts generated on the Mattel thread. There exists a double standard in the forum where folks applaud Mattel's (or Nanmu or W Dragon) efforts to reproduce JP creatures in toy form. When REBOR or Papo does the same, they get derided. The truth is that companies such as Papo and REBOR are dedicated to pleasing movie fanatics as well as paleo junkies but stereotypes regarding what they can or can't do are pervasive. The comment isn't aimed at you specifically, but the army of folks with similar stances. There is also an element of elitism amongst collectors where certain models are unfairly dismissed or rated more poorly than they should simply because of association with a particular brand.

[austrosaurus]

Oh it's...not good from an accuracy standpoint, but that's just how it is with Jurassic Park merchandise. As an action figure I think I like it, I'm not super sold on the design but I think if I saw it in person I'd come around.

Don't know why you keep making these premature judgments regarding accuracy.

1. Mattel's Siats meekerorum is the most accurate representation of Siats meekerorum in the toy market because it's the only one.
2. Considering that it is an Allosaurid by default, it makes sense that Mattel would model it after it's very own Allosaurid models.
3. Aside from some scant vertebrae elements, there isn't much material discovered for a complete reconstruction, allowing considerable latitude with respect to creative license.
4. You don't know what you are talking about.

Don't know why you made a rude comment because I gave my opinion regarding accuracy.
1) Just because it's the only toy made of the animal doesn't mean it's automatically accurate by default.
2) As suspsy said, Siats was an neovenatorid allosauroid, not an allosaurid (which might not be a natural clade), and actually might even be a coelurosaur if it ends up being a megaraptoran after all.
3) Just because a species is fragmentary, doesn't mean that we get to just do whatever when we reconstruct them. If it's an allosauroid, it should look like an allosauroid. If it's a megaraptoran, it should look like a megaraptoran. It looks like neither.
4) I very clearly do know what I'm talking about, and besides, ad hominem attacks aren't within the spirit or rules of the forum.

It's not a rude comment but statements that are associated with accuracy should be carefully worded or they tend to sway public opinion. REBOR and Papo are examples of companies that have demonstrated that they are willing to make products that are accurate. Obviously, there is a big market to be had with JP-style models as can be seen from the thousands of posts generated on the Mattel thread. There exists a double standard in the forum where folks applaud Mattel's (or Nanmu or W Dragon) efforts to reproduce JP creatures in toy form. When REBOR or Papo does the same, they get derided. The truth is that companies such as Papo and REBOR are dedicated to pleasing movie fanatics as well as paleo junkies but stereotypes regarding what they can or can't do are pervasive. The comment isn't aimed at you specifically, but the army of folks with similar stances. There is also an element of elitism amongst collectors where certain models are unfairly dismissed or rated more poorly than they should simply because of association with a particular brand.

Look, at the end of the day people have different priorities when collecting and that reflects in the kind of toys they collect. I clearly prefer my collection to be as accurate as possible, but I still do collect Jurassic Park-inspired toys, and if you read my original comment I even said I would like to get this one if/when I found it in store. I don't see the point in starting a pages-long argument over a two-sentence comment when I didn't even disagree with you so I'm going to bow out and wish you good day.

[Loon]

I didn't see this mentioned anywhere, but am I the only one who finds those arms kind gross looking?

[suspsy]

Saying that the Mattel toy is the most accurate Siats representation on the market simply because it's the only one is like saying that a 600 lb man is healthy because he's the only participant in a World's Healthiest Man contest. Such reasoning simply doesn't work.

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

Saying that the Mattel toy is the most accurate Siats representation on the market simply because it's the only one is like saying that a 600 lb man is healthy because he's the only participant in a World's Healthiest Man contest. Such reasoning simply doesn't work.

This just had me thinking, what if he was the only man in the world? You couldn't judge much because you don't know what is accurate or normal without a wider sample group.

[PumperKrickel]

Good to know I´m not the only one who finds this forum´s obsession with accuracy extremely tiring, especially when it comes to JP/JW figures. Whenever a figure is shown or reviewed people feel compelled to say it´s "inaccurate and almost all reviews contain a variation of the phrase: "It´s JP, so it obviously is inaccurate." It´s one of the most boring and uninspiring observations one could articulate, especially considering that all dinosaur figures inevitably come with a level of inaccuracy.
JP figures aren´t even meant to be accurate to the real animals, though. They represent genetic reconstructions made by human scientists and are therefore prone to have their look influenced by biases. When a cloned dinosaur looks different than it should according to your understanding, you´d most likely assume that something went wrong during the cloning process and try again until you got the desired outcome.
Judging these figures by their level of accuracy alone is pointless, one might just as well judge them on how throwable they are or if they can be used as a plate.

[suspsy]

Saying that the Mattel toy is the most accurate Siats representation on the market simply because it's the only one is like saying that a 600 lb man is healthy because he's the only participant in a World's Healthiest Man contest. Such reasoning simply doesn't work.

This just had me thinking, what if he was the only man in the world? You couldn't judge much because you don't know what is accurate or normal without a wider sample group.

Well, if he was the only man in the world, he'd be doing other things instead of entering a silly contest. Bottom line: that Siats toy doesn't look much like a neovenatorid. But hey, it's a great big theropod that can move and bite, so I'm sure it'll sell well.

I like that Mattel is picking some obscure taxa, but I also feel that they could have gone with ones that are known from better fossil material. Acrocanthosaurus or Yangchuanosaurus or Torvosaurus instead of Siats would have been great. So would Camptosaurus and Megalosaurus instead of Callovosaurus and Gasosaurus.

[MLMjp]

I like that Mattel is picking some obscure taxa, but I also feel that they could have gone with ones that are known from better fossil material. Acrocanthosaurus or Yangchuanosaurus or Torvosaurus instead of Siats would have been great. So would Camptosaurus and Megalosaurus instead of Callovosaurus and Gasosaurus.

Totally agree. That´s exactly how I feel and why I am kinda against the inclusion of Siats in this toyline. The figure is fine, I don't hate it, but any of the other options you said would have been way better for me. Same for switching Callovosaurus for Camptosaurus.

The positive side of this is that I save some money.

[CarnotaurusKing]

Call me a heretic, but I actually quite like the Siats. But best believe, I'm giving it a dentist's appointment ASAP.

I'm also quite interested in the Alioramus, Majungasaurus, Scutosaurus, and Irritator, though I'm also less than keen on the teeth of the last one.

[stargatedalek]

I find it absurd to refer to Acrocanthosaurus or Torvosaurus as obscure, and Yangchaunosaurus had been done by other companies before. No they aren't "T-Wrecks" or "Megalodon", but they're animals anyone with more than a passing interest in dinosaurs is likely already aware of, and more importantly these are animals that a more science oriented toy line is likely to also make (multiple have already done so).

Making an Acrocanthosaurus earns them no points for being unique, Safari and CollectA already make some, and also likely won't earn many points for a weird/cool factor because of this. Siats gets the attention of people who are looking for unique, and is at least as weird/cool/different.

Siats was an interesting choice, and companies should never be put down for doing something genuinely new and interesting.

REBOR and Papo are examples of companies that have demonstrated that they are willing to make products that are accurate. Obviously, there is a big market to be had with JP-style models as can be seen from the thousands of posts generated on the Mattel thread. There exists a double standard in the forum where folks applaud Mattel's (or Nanmu or W Dragon) efforts to reproduce JP creatures in toy form. When REBOR or Papo does the same, they get derided. The truth is that companies such as Papo and REBOR are dedicated to pleasing movie fanatics as well as paleo junkies but stereotypes regarding what they can or can't do are pervasive. The comment isn't aimed at you specifically, but the army of folks with similar stances. There is also an element of elitism amongst collectors where certain models are unfairly dismissed or rated more poorly than they should simply because of association with a particular brand.

Have they really proven they are willing to make accurate designs though? I get it, complaining JP/JW toys aren't accurate is annoying, but I don't think REBOR has released* (released, not announced) a single prehistoric toy that is fully accurate to the animals known science (dragonflies aside). They've certainly shown they're capable with their absolutely lovely Komodo Dragon, but capable and willing are two very different things.

REBOR gets a bit more lineance from me in terms of using JP designs because they are doing different things with them.

I for one complain about REBOR and Papo designs and not Mattel because it's theft. They are being lazy and instead of making their own designs they are trying to copy pre-existing designs exactly. Papo is particularly egregious, they based most of their sculpts on screenshots from the movies! How much more obvious can you possibly get? And a lot of their other models are based on Sideshow Dinosauria statues which is no better.

The only accurate Papo design is the Megaloceros, not a single other one of their prehistoric animals is accurate. And Megaloceros is a giant deer, you have to actively try to mess that one up.

I'm only vaguely aware of W-Dragon or Nanmu so I haven't really commented but I don't support the way they do things either. Though I have to remind that they are at least not trying to copy exact screenshots from the movies.

[suspsy]

I find it absurd to refer to Acrocanthosaurus or Torvosaurus as obscure, and Yangchaunosaurus had been done by other companies before. No they aren't "T-Wrecks" or "Megalodon", but they're animals anyone with more than a passing interest in dinosaurs is likely already aware of, and animals that are likely for a more science oriented toy line to do.

As far as the general public is concerned, they certainly are obscure. I just randomly tossed those ones out as examples, but there are plenty of other big theropods that even fewer lay folk know about and are known from better material than Siats. But again, if people are happy about it, then more power to them.

[Sim]

I don't really follow this thread as the Mattel Jurassic World figures really aren't for me, but I wanted to comment on one thing.  While I agree that Acrocanthosaurus isn't obscure in the sense that it's been made as a figure very often, I think Torvosaurus is obscure.  Torvosaurus tanneri has never even been made as a toy once!  (CollectA's Torvosaurus represents T. gurneyi.)

Personally, I agree with @suspsy and @MLMjp in liking that Mattel is representing some obscure species, but feeling it would have been better to avoid ones known from poor remains.  I think it's better to let people learn about animals we know a good amount about which can still be an obscure species, instead of something that's more like a fantasy species.

@stargatedalek raises an interesting point though.  Sometimes companies want to do something different to what others are offering and perhaps it can be hard to know what to pick.  (I think suspsy made some good suggestions.)  I wonder if a thread that lists species of this kind would be a good idea.  So it would list species that are prehistoric, known from decent remains, that lack a good toy version and be a species that one would like made.

[Faelrin]

At least some of these are justifiable picks from being in either the novels or other materials related to the films (or even mentioned in the films), such as Callovosaurus and Ornitholestes, although Siats and Gasosaurus certainly are not mentioned in either.

I also agree that while it is nice to see obscure species in this line, it would also be nice if the ones picked had more complete remains (of course personal exception in this case for me is the Cryolophosaurus, as it is one of my favorites despite still being vastly incomplete, because of its unique crest).

I do think an Acrocanthosaurus would be nice to see down the road (and I would certainly have preferred it to Siats as of now, if it was pulled off well), if not other large theropods like Giganotosaurus and Carcharodontosaurus. Two of those were also from JPOG, my favorite Jurassic Park game (though also included in JWE, assuming one has all the DLC's for it anyways), and Acrocanthosaurus is probably one of my top ten favorite theropods anyways.

[Takama]

Honestly,   I think that Mattel just picks random species from an Encyclopedia of dinosaurs, and determines what looks cool for the toy line.

The only exceptions are species that appeared in the movies, and other forms of JP Media.

[MLMjp]

Honestly,   I think that Mattel just picks random species from an Encyclopedia of dinosaurs, and determines what looks cool for the toy line.

The only exceptions are species that appeared in the movies, and other forms of JP Media.

Which encyclopedia has Siats then? I have yet to seen that one in a book.

But that actually seems reasonable. Minmi, Mononykus, Mussaurus, Alioramus, Gasosaurus...I became aware of their existence because of books I had (and I still have) when I was younger.

[Appalachiosaurus]

JP figures aren´t even meant to be accurate to the real animals, though. They represent genetic reconstructions made by human scientists and are therefore prone to have their look influenced by biases. When a cloned dinosaur looks different than it should according to your understanding, you´d most likely assume that something went wrong during the cloning process and try again until you got the desired outcome.
Judging these figures by their level of accuracy alone is pointless, one might just as well judge them on how throwable they are or if they can be used as a plate.

Ugh, I hate that logic so much. No matter the in-universe excuse, the franchise calls them Dinosaurs so they should be judged as Dinosaurs. If Mattel or Universal doesn't want people criticizing their inconsistencies, they should just make dragons instead. Or at least make something up, they went as far to label the Siats toy with the species name, why do that if you're just going to create a monster?

I do still like the toy though, just despise that argument thrown around to shut any discussion about accuracy down frequently and immediately.

I like that Mattel is picking some obscure taxa, but I also feel that they could have gone with ones that are known from better fossil material. Acrocanthosaurus or Yangchuanosaurus or Torvosaurus instead of Siats would have been great. So would Camptosaurus and Megalosaurus instead of Callovosaurus and Gasosaurus.

It's not like Mattel are strictly following the Fossil remains anyways. I see nothing wrong with all these obscure chooses Mattel is making, if anything it's educational to the average Dino-Buff. How many comments have you seen on never having heard of Sinoceratops before Fallen Kingdom? I for one can't wait for an Appalachiosaurus Roar-i-vore. Plus if these toys do become outdated, that'll just add to their charm. Like the old-school Spinosaurus from TLW line.

[tanystropheus]

I find it absurd to refer to Acrocanthosaurus or Torvosaurus as obscure, and Yangchaunosaurus had been done by other companies before. No they aren't "T-Wrecks" or "Megalodon", but they're animals anyone with more than a passing interest in dinosaurs is likely already aware of, and more importantly these are animals that a more science oriented toy line is likely to also make (multiple have already done so).

Making an Acrocanthosaurus earns them no points for being unique, Safari and CollectA already make some, and also likely won't earn many points for a weird/cool factor because of this. Siats gets the attention of people who are looking for unique, and is at least as weird/cool/different.

Siats was an interesting choice, and companies should never be put down for doing something genuinely new and interesting.

REBOR and Papo are examples of companies that have demonstrated that they are willing to make products that are accurate. Obviously, there is a big market to be had with JP-style models as can be seen from the thousands of posts generated on the Mattel thread. There exists a double standard in the forum where folks applaud Mattel's (or Nanmu or W Dragon) efforts to reproduce JP creatures in toy form. When REBOR or Papo does the same, they get derided. The truth is that companies such as Papo and REBOR are dedicated to pleasing movie fanatics as well as paleo junkies but stereotypes regarding what they can or can't do are pervasive. The comment isn't aimed at you specifically, but the army of folks with similar stances. There is also an element of elitism amongst collectors where certain models are unfairly dismissed or rated more poorly than they should simply because of association with a particular brand.

Have they really proven they are willing to make accurate designs though? I get it, complaining JP/JW toys aren't accurate is annoying, but I don't think REBOR has released* (released, not announced) a single prehistoric toy that is fully accurate to the animals known science (dragonflies aside). They've certainly shown they're capable with their absolutely lovely Komodo Dragon, but capable and willing are two very different things.

REBOR gets a bit more lineance from me in terms of using JP designs because they are doing different things with them.

I for one complain about REBOR and Papo designs and not Mattel because it's theft. They are being lazy and instead of making their own designs they are trying to copy pre-existing designs exactly. Papo is particularly egregious, they based most of their sculpts on screenshots from the movies! How much more obvious can you possibly get? And a lot of their other models are based on Sideshow Dinosauria statues which is no better.

The only accurate Papo design is the Megaloceros, not a single other one of their prehistoric animals is accurate. And Megaloceros is a giant deer, you have to actively try to mess that one up.

I'm only vaguely aware of W-Dragon or Nanmu so I haven't really commented but I don't support the way they do things either. Though I have to remind that they are at least not trying to copy exact screenshots from the movies.

Thank you for demonstrating how annoying devout brand loyalty can be. "The only accurate Papo design is the Megaloceros" Are you ABSOLUTELY out of your mind. Papo has released accurate figures outside of Megaloceros. I'm not even going to bother giving examples. The statement is beyond ridiculous.

Also, REBOR has released a number of models that are comparable in accuracy to that which is available by Wild Safari and CollectA. But let's pretend they haven't because we're all paleontologists here 

W-Dragon or Nanmu are actually more screen accurate to JP than Papo or REBOR so I don't know what you are talking about.

[tanystropheus]

Good to know I´m not the only one who finds this forum´s obsession with accuracy extremely tiring, especially when it comes to JP/JW figures. Whenever a figure is shown or reviewed people feel compelled to say it´s "inaccurate and almost all reviews contain a variation of the phrase: "It´s JP, so it obviously is inaccurate." It´s one of the most boring and uninspiring observations one could articulate, especially considering that all dinosaur figures inevitably come with a level of inaccuracy.
JP figures aren´t even meant to be accurate to the real animals, though. They represent genetic reconstructions made by human scientists and are therefore prone to have their look influenced by biases. When a cloned dinosaur looks different than it should according to your understanding, you´d most likely assume that something went wrong during the cloning process and try again until you got the desired outcome.
Judging these figures by their level of accuracy alone is pointless, one might just as well judge them on how throwable they are or if they can be used as a plate.

It's incredibly annoying. Furthermore, the problem with folks is that they have a love for low-end JP reproductions but absolutely trash high-end JP reproductions. It's a type of counterintuitive, brand loyalty that defies logic and reason. They might as well admit that they cannot afford it, but strangely enough, they go about purchasing every single color variant of Herrerasaurus known to man, giving the impression that perhaps they could.

[Loon]

Thank you for demonstrating how annoying devout brand loyalty can be. "The only accurate Papo design is the Megaloceros" Are you ABSOLUTELY out of your mind. Papo has released accurate figures outside of Megaloceros. I'm not even going to bother giving examples. The statement is beyond ridiculous.

Also, REBOR has released a number of models that are comparable in accuracy to that which is available by Wild Safari and CollectA. But let's pretend they haven't because we're all paleontologists here 

Shocking. The guy who whined and called everyone elitists earlier is incredibly irritating and rude. Way to show you're not an elitist by calling everybody who doesn't think like you a bunch of rubes, by the way.

Here fixed the last line for you:

I don't know what I'm talking about.