PNSO—New for 2020

[John]

*double post*

[John]

Parasaurolophus is in need of an update.

When you say that Parasaurolophus is in need of an update do you mean that the Safari 2017 version, as well as the CollectA 2013 one are both inaccurate, and need an update because all the current figures of it are inaccurate?  I don't get your point. Even the Schleich 2006 version is reasonably accurate, and on top of there's the Battat Terra version which is even older and still holds up. So, the statement Parasaurolophus needs an update is technically incorrect.

And what about Velafrons, Magnapaulia, Kritosaurus...? Those do need updated versions too, right?  Ah, right. They have no representation at all.

I had forgotten about the Safari one from 2017.That one seems to be properly muscled at least.
But science marches on and we now know of hoof like structures on the hand of at least Edmontosaurus annectens,and it would be reasonable to assume that feature for Parasaurolophus too (this is so new a discovery,even the PNSO one doesn't seem to incorporate this).And if any of the three species you mention did turn up,my response would be excitement that they are available,not that it should have been species X instead of species Y.

[Carnoking]

I personally would be very surprised to see the hoof structure incorporated into the new Parasaurolophus (?) given that that is a fairly recent development. It's certainly not impossible, but that would mean the turnaround time for this completely new model would have been right around 6 months, probably less if they were teasing an already completed offering back in late April. I'm sure someone better versed in the production pipeline of these figures could put me in my place, but that seems like a very small time frame to complete the sculpt, create the molds, run test casts, plan paint, and produce a finalized version for reveal purposes.

[Loon]

If companies are gonna keep making Parasaurolophus figures, can someone please make a P. cyrtocristatus for once?

[Flaffy]

Folks, we don't even know if this is Parasaurolophus. It could be Charonosaurus, which, anatomical similarity to Parasaurolophus aside is not exactly well represented either. Plus let's be honest, there is new material to be referenced in a take on Parasaurolophus, certainly enough that given the right creativity it could be something truly distinct from any figure of it made before.

I think this is pretty telling evidence that the new figure is indeed a Parasaurolophus. It's in the exact same pose, with the exact same notch in the upper back as the Dans Dinosaurs teaser.
Link: https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV1kk4y197cq/?spm_id_from=333.788.videocard.7

[Flaffy]

Parasaurolophus is in need of an update.That other species like Charonasaurus have not been well represented if at all may be true,but that does not invalidate and therefore,make wrong the earlier statement about Parasaurolophus.

How is Parasaurolophus in need of an update? Like I, and Narutoceratops have said before, there are plenty of Parasaurolophus figures that still holds up well besides the hooves, which all current hadrosaur figures lack that.

So if hooves are the basis of a figure needing an update, then all hadrosaur species currently made into figures is also in dire need of an update. And not just Parasaurolophus. (and the same would apply to the PNSO figure, since from what we've seen, it lacks hooves as well)

P. walkeri already has lots representation in the figure world. I don't feel that there is a dire need of an updated figure of the species. Even within the genus, P. cyrtocristatus is often ignored in favour of its straight(er) crested cousin. I just feel that by not making the figure a P. walkeri, it would've made the figure stand out among the thousands of Parasaurolophus figures.

[stargatedalek]

Folks, we don't even know if this is Parasaurolophus. It could be Charonosaurus, which, anatomical similarity to Parasaurolophus aside is not exactly well represented either. Plus let's be honest, there is new material to be referenced in a take on Parasaurolophus, certainly enough that given the right creativity it could be something truly distinct from any figure of it made before.

I think this is pretty telling evidence that the new figure is indeed a Parasaurolophus. It's in the exact same pose, with the exact same notch in the upper back as the Dans Dinosaurs teaser.
Link: https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV1kk4y197cq/?spm_id_from=333.788.videocard.7

Charonosaurus is known from an incomplete skull, hence the exact size and shape of the crest is unknown but it was likely very similar to Parasaurolophus. There is no way to know if a given figure is Charonosaurus or Parasaurolophus until that's been stated. A Charonosaurus could be depicted with a crest based on any of the Parasaurolophus species, or as a composite.

Parasaurolophus is in need of an update.That other species like Charonasaurus have not been well represented if at all may be true,but that does not invalidate and therefore,make wrong the earlier statement about Parasaurolophus.

How is Parasaurolophus in need of an update? Like I, and Narutoceratops have said before, there are plenty of Parasaurolophus figures that still holds up well besides the hooves, which all current hadrosaur figures lack that.

So if hooves are the basis of a figure needing an update, then all hadrosaur species currently made into figures is also in dire need of an update. And not just Parasaurolophus. (and the same would apply to the PNSO figure, since from what we've seen, it lacks hooves as well)

P. walkeri already has lots representation in the figure world. I don't feel that there is a dire need of an updated figure of the species. Even within the genus, P. cyrtocristatus is often ignored in favour of its straight(er) crested cousin. I just feel that by not making the figure a P. walkeri, it would've made the figure stand out among the thousands of Parasaurolophus figures.

Parasaurolophus is hardly in the position of Tyrannosaurus, Triceratops, or even of Ankylosaurus and Stegosaurus. There aren't actually all that many figures of it, and certainly not very many currently in production or that make serious attempt at being scientifically accurate. There is plenty of room for new interpretations yet. Plus this is going to be in a very different size range, being significantly larger.

While it doesn't have the single nail we see in Edmontosaurus, it does have a single fleshy pad that the three toes end in, just with separate nails. Considering how distantly they're related it's hardly a given that Lambeosaurinae had the same structure anyway,

If this is a Parasaurolophus, it looks a lot more like P. tubicen. The crest is longer and straighter than with walkeri.

[John]

Folks, we don't even know if this is Parasaurolophus. It could be Charonosaurus, which, anatomical similarity to Parasaurolophus aside is not exactly well represented either. Plus let's be honest, there is new material to be referenced in a take on Parasaurolophus, certainly enough that given the right creativity it could be something truly distinct from any figure of it made before.

I think this is pretty telling evidence that the new figure is indeed a Parasaurolophus. It's in the exact same pose, with the exact same notch in the upper back as the Dans Dinosaurs teaser.
Link: https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV1kk4y197cq/?spm_id_from=333.788.videocard.7

Charonosaurus is known from an incomplete skull, hence the exact size and shape of the crest is unknown but it was likely very similar to Parasaurolophus. There is no way to know if a given figure is Charonosaurus or Parasaurolophus until that's been stated. A Charonosaurus could be depicted with a crest based on any of the Parasaurolophus species, or as a composite.

Parasaurolophus is in need of an update.That other species like Charonasaurus have not been well represented if at all may be true,but that does not invalidate and therefore,make wrong the earlier statement about Parasaurolophus.

How is Parasaurolophus in need of an update? Like I, and Narutoceratops have said before, there are plenty of Parasaurolophus figures that still holds up well besides the hooves, which all current hadrosaur figures lack that.

So if hooves are the basis of a figure needing an update, then all hadrosaur species currently made into figures is also in dire need of an update. And not just Parasaurolophus. (and the same would apply to the PNSO figure, since from what we've seen, it lacks hooves as well)

P. walkeri already has lots representation in the figure world. I don't feel that there is a dire need of an updated figure of the species. Even within the genus, P. cyrtocristatus is often ignored in favour of its straight(er) crested cousin. I just feel that by not making the figure a P. walkeri, it would've made the figure stand out among the thousands of Parasaurolophus figures.

Parasaurolophus is hardly in the position of Tyrannosaurus, Triceratops, or even of Ankylosaurus and Stegosaurus. There aren't actually all that many figures of it, and certainly not very many currently in production or that make serious attempt at being scientifically accurate. There is plenty of room for new interpretations yet. Plus this is going to be in a very different size range, being significantly larger.

While it doesn't have the single nail we see in Edmontosaurus, it does have a single fleshy pad that the three toes end in, just with separate nails. Considering how distantly they're related it's hardly a given that Lambeosaurinae had the same structure anyway,

If this is a Parasaurolophus, it looks a lot more like P. tubicen. The crest is longer and straighter than with walkeri.

I think it was said to be at 1/15 scale,so it will probably be in the line that includes Nick the Ceratosaurus.If I'm remembering right that is.

[Loon]

Maybe this got lost in the debate, but these are larger scale? Are they similar size to anything released before?

[Flaffy]

Folks, we don't even know if this is Parasaurolophus. It could be Charonosaurus, which, anatomical similarity to Parasaurolophus aside is not exactly well represented either. Plus let's be honest, there is new material to be referenced in a take on Parasaurolophus, certainly enough that given the right creativity it could be something truly distinct from any figure of it made before.

I think this is pretty telling evidence that the new figure is indeed a Parasaurolophus. It's in the exact same pose, with the exact same notch in the upper back as the Dans Dinosaurs teaser.
Link: https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV1kk4y197cq/?spm_id_from=333.788.videocard.7

Charonosaurus is known from an incomplete skull, hence the exact size and shape of the crest is unknown but it was likely very similar to Parasaurolophus. There is no way to know if a given figure is Charonosaurus or Parasaurolophus until that's been stated. A Charonosaurus could be depicted with a crest based on any of the Parasaurolophus species, or as a composite.

While it is true we technically don't know what the figure depicts unless specified otherwise. The video and the artist already specifically states that it's a parasaurolophus. As such, we can make an educated guess that the final figure would be a Parasaurolophus, especially since it looks to be the same sculpt.

Parasaurolophus is hardly in the position of Tyrannosaurus, Triceratops, or even of Ankylosaurus and Stegosaurus. There aren't actually all that many figures of it, and certainly not very many currently in production or that make serious attempt at being scientifically accurate. There is plenty of room for new interpretations yet.

True again that Parasaurolophus isn't made as frequently as the likes of rexes or trikes, but I never made the connection in the first place.
The debate was if there was a "need" for another Parasaurolophus figure. While new interpretations are always welcome, I don't feel that there is a need for another one since there are already widely available scientifically sound ones on the market already.

[John]

Maybe this got lost in the debate, but these are larger scale? Are they similar size to anything released before?

Based on the size of the model in the video,I would guess that it will be in the same line as Nick the Ceratosaurus.

[Loon]

Maybe this got lost in the debate, but these are larger scale? Are they similar size to anything released before?

Based on the size of the model in the video,I would guess that it will be in the same line as Nick the Ceratosaurus.

Ah, ok. Shame, was hoping it would be in the 1/35 line. Still very nice looking though.

[Flaffy]

Maybe this got lost in the debate, but these are larger scale? Are they similar size to anything released before?

On another note, the Borealopelta model seen in the video is in 1:10 scale, while the Parasaurolophus is in 1:15 scale.
No information as to whether or not the final release figures will be in the same scale as the unpainted models.

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

Maybe this got lost in the debate, but these are larger scale? Are they similar size to anything released before?

Based on the size of the model in the video,I would guess that it will be in the same line as Nick the Ceratosaurus.

I'm good with that

[Shonisaurus]

Maybe this got lost in the debate, but these are larger scale? Are they similar size to anything released before?

Based on the size of the model in the video,I would guess that it will be in the same line as Nick the Ceratosaurus.

Unfortunately I will not be able to buy it, so my wallet will be used for other more practical purposes (food, clothing, medicine, cleaning supplies).

[SidB]

Too large for my existing PNSO"s, unfortunately. They'd need to be in the 1/32 -1 /40 range. Oh well, I'll spend my $ on something else.

[suspsy]

Those models could possibly be the prototypes for smaller scale production toys.

[Carnoking]

Folks, we don't even know if this is Parasaurolophus. It could be Charonosaurus, which, anatomical similarity to Parasaurolophus aside is not exactly well represented either. Plus let's be honest, there is new material to be referenced in a take on Parasaurolophus, certainly enough that given the right creativity it could be something truly distinct from any figure of it made before.

I think this is pretty telling evidence that the new figure is indeed a Parasaurolophus. It's in the exact same pose, with the exact same notch in the upper back as the Dans Dinosaurs teaser.
Link: https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV1kk4y197cq/?spm_id_from=333.788.videocard.7

Charonosaurus is known from an incomplete skull, hence the exact size and shape of the crest is unknown but it was likely very similar to Parasaurolophus. There is no way to know if a given figure is Charonosaurus or Parasaurolophus until that's been stated. A Charonosaurus could be depicted with a crest based on any of the Parasaurolophus species, or as a composite.

Parasaurolophus is in need of an update.That other species like Charonasaurus have not been well represented if at all may be true,but that does not invalidate and therefore,make wrong the earlier statement about Parasaurolophus.

How is Parasaurolophus in need of an update? Like I, and Narutoceratops have said before, there are plenty of Parasaurolophus figures that still holds up well besides the hooves, which all current hadrosaur figures lack that.

So if hooves are the basis of a figure needing an update, then all hadrosaur species currently made into figures is also in dire need of an update. And not just Parasaurolophus. (and the same would apply to the PNSO figure, since from what we've seen, it lacks hooves as well)

P. walkeri already has lots representation in the figure world. I don't feel that there is a dire need of an updated figure of the species. Even within the genus, P. cyrtocristatus is often ignored in favour of its straight(er) crested cousin. I just feel that by not making the figure a P. walkeri, it would've made the figure stand out among the thousands of Parasaurolophus figures.

Parasaurolophus is hardly in the position of Tyrannosaurus, Triceratops, or even of Ankylosaurus and Stegosaurus. There aren't actually all that many figures of it, and certainly not very many currently in production or that make serious attempt at being scientifically accurate. There is plenty of room for new interpretations yet. Plus this is going to be in a very different size range, being significantly larger.

While it doesn't have the single nail we see in Edmontosaurus, it does have a single fleshy pad that the three toes end in, just with separate nails. Considering how distantly they're related it's hardly a given that Lambeosaurinae had the same structure anyway,

If this is a Parasaurolophus, it looks a lot more like P. tubicen. The crest is longer and straighter than with walkeri.

I was wondering about the possibility of parasaurolophus also possessing the hoof structure...

[suspsy]

Just for the record, there's presently 37 Parasaurolophus reviews on the DTB, more than there are for Ankylosaurus, Apatosaurus, Pteranodon, Styracosaurus, or the woolly mammoth. Stegosaurus, Velociraptor, Triceratops, and Tyrannosaurus rex are way ahead of it, though.

But sheer number of toys doesn't have any bearing on whether this genus or that genus "deserves" another one. PNSO is a business, after all. They want to make cool dinosaur toys, but they also want to make ones that sell. And they haven't done a Parasaurolophus yet, so it really does make sense for them to do so. Again, I'd much prefer Charonosaurus or practically any other hadrosaur, but what's done is done.

[Shonisaurus]

Obviously, PNSO wants to be bought, parasaurolophus is a well-known dinosaur and stegosaurus, velociraptor, triceratops and tyrannosaurus are dinosaurs known for their success in the market, it is logical that PNSO tends to sell dinosaurs that can bring you economic benefits and not risk money to sell dinosaurs or other prehistoric animals that are dark and may even mean little consumption and this can be proven by the success or failure of sales that these dinosaurs or prehistoric animals has meant for other brands, such as Collecta, Papo, Safari, Schleich , Mojo. They have to feed a good number of families and the first thing that they are going to look for is the commercial benefit, as it is logical I do not reproach PNSO in this case that they have bet on parasaurolophus they are going to a sure profit if they sold a lambeosaurus, saurolophus or even a little-known dinosaur by name and similar to the parasaurolophus as is the charonosaurus, the name of the dinosaur for a child and collector is often sold one thing is a triceratops and another an eotriceratops and diceratops and the same can be said of a charonosaurus with respect to to the parasaurolophus the clients buy a dinosaur that they know or that is well-known, they are more attracted than a similar dinosaur but with an exotic name for them
such as charonosaurus, because if that product were to be marketed, the sales success would diminish for that reason that may seem absurd and, logically, the dinosaur brands are going to sell their products, not to lose money. It is sad but it is reality.