Today we will be thoroughly looking over the Papo Spinosaurus– He is quite well loved in the dinosaur and Jurassic park communities, so I hope I don’t dampen spirits too much with my somewhat critical review. As for Spinosaurus itself, it was an extremely large theropod dinosaur that lived in northern Africa about 100 million years ago. It probably dined on fish and water living tetrapods.
Let’s start off with the head or this figure. To put it bluntly, basically everything is wrong, minus the long jaws. The lack of a “fish trap” at the end of the jaws, the relatively robustness of the skull, the large and backwards pointing teeth, the nostrils low on the snout, and the two crests are all extremely un-spinosaurid like. The inside of the mouth and the tongue are beautifully detailed, and the lower jaw is poseable (great for display purposes…). The eyes are green with slit pupils, suggesting a nocturnal lifestyle.
Now let’s focus on the body. Most everything is nice here. Great details and the claws are superb. I love the little spine/scute like projections on the back. The colors are very boring, only shades of grey (Also of note– The paint is very tacky when it gets warm[or at least with mine]). The arms could be a little more muscley, but that is really personal preference (No spinosaurus arms have been found to date). The sail is also very thin– Most likely it should be thicker, because the spines of the sail were very thick and buffalo like, so there was probably muscle and fat coating the sail, making it noticeably thick (There was probably NOT a “hump” like a camel though!).
The feet seem a little large; but again, no spinosaurid limbs are known, so that is really personal taste. The body is very robust; perhaps too much– But it still looks nice. The detailing is exquisite. It also stands well, but since the plastic is relatively soft, when it becomes warm the legs can bend and the whole thing can fall flat on it’s face, and due to the delicate paint job, paint wear is just around the corner. The joints are extremely visible and distract away from the detail.This is a very large figure– Fourteen inches long! He towers over most 1/40th scale dinosaurs.
Overall, I give this guy an 8/10. I do think this figure is a little overrated, but people love good details and the likeliness to Jurassic Park, so of course he flies off store shelves.
Available from Amazon.com (here)
Photo generously supplied by Bokisaurus and Takama
Someone made an accurate spinosaurus out of this figure
[…] the roaring success of Papo’s adult Spinosaurus figure it was only a matter of time before we got a tiny counterpart. Especially seeing how Papo have […]
The head shape reminds me of an ” IRRITATOR”, a new kind/genus of spinosaurid [It belonged to the same family as Spinosaurus.
Not a purist, just old school. In terms of inaccuracies, who’s to say? Dinosaurs are like incomplete puzzles. No one’s for certain what they REALLY look like. So just like the Jurassic Park scientists, our paleo-experts cloned the missing pieces. Hence, Papo Spinosaurus. I’ve seen different models of this species, but as far as realism goes, this figure tops the list, be it inaccurate or Jurassic park inspired.
[…] as the Jurassic Park monster was enthusiastically embraced by Papo in 2009, while the Carnegie collection issued a “new and improved”, scientifically […]
It is not without shortcomings that might irk hardline purists, but I just received mine and am taken aback by how it looks like a living breathing animal… It’s shocking really…while the majority of papo dinosaurs have a similar effect, this and the allosaurus truly stand out.
[…] This page is old, read the full review here […]
I think, given that I know quite a few people who own a papo dino but are not dino collectors themselves, that papo is extremely smart in making this figure look like the spinosaurus from jurassic park. Given that many collectors feel that figures must be accurate, we shouldn’t forget the market that papo is most likely really aiming for: kids, jp fans, and the casual adult who happens to appreciate the life-likeness of these figures. As far as that goes, their toys seem to sell and appeal to a variety of people due to the amount of artistic detail put into each toy. I own one of these guys and the schleich spino as well, and while i can see the inaccuracies in the papo one compared to the schleich one, mostly all my friends that see them side by side gravitate to the papo spinosaurus and ultimately that is what papo is probably really aiming for, inaccuracies and all.
Oh my i must be mad, i wrote that my other spino was shleich but it’s carnegie! A figure which by the way is very beautifully done in my opinion and is among my favorites in my very modest collection.
I got this yesterday, and I’m simply blown away by the detail of it. Of course people will always speculate over innacuracies when it comes to dinosaur figures, but nobody will ever really know for sure what they looked like, so I think we should allow a little poetic licence when it comes to these, and just enjoy them as the wonderful sculptures they are.
Seriously, the detail on this is so realistic.
Siento decepcionar en parte al autor de este comentario sobre el Spinosaurus, pero me parece una figura bastante realista, aunque también hay que reconocer que es una copia del Spinosaurus del Parque Jurásico. En cuanto a su comparación con el Spinosaurus de Safari, aunque ya se que todas las comparaciones son odiosas y más con esta figura, hay que reconocer aunque yo soy un simple aficionado, que el Spinosaurus de Safari es una gran figura aunque se mantenga en posición trípode. De hecho es que los dinosaurios de Safari se basan en los abundantes restos paleontológicos almacenados en U.S.A. y por lo tanto la exactitud de las figuras es asombrosa
Well, I am not inclined to take a purist stance, because after all it is a toy for (older) children.
They have no idea about skull details, but I am sure they can pick any spinosaurus from a bunch of dinosaurs if they have seen this one.
This one you don’t forget: it is striking in form, realism and detail.
As a child I could recognise a 4 inch tropical seashell from 4 yards away, while I had only seen drawings and one photograph of the species thus far. Never in real life before.
Art work is striking and you remember it, or it is dull and you forget more easily.
I agree with Sim’s comments about Carnegie’s Spino, but the Papo version, while being inaccurate in some respects, is much more, erm, is ‘dynamic’ the right word?
It seems people here don’t understand that people can have differing opinions?
bucketfoot-al, I think now you’re being downright rude and obnoxious.
Carnegie’s Spinosaurus is detailed, and Papo’s does have head problems. Justifying the ignorance gone into Papo’s Spinosaurus with it being a toy seems foolish. What would it cost them to get the details right? And Carnegie’s Spinosaurus has all the details it needs, and to come accross as a work of art.
I feel annoyed with Papo, as they encourage people to see prehistoric animals with many mitakes.
Yes, I was. But Cordy can take it, at his age that kind of give-and-take is common among friends (as far as I can recall that far back). Check out the other review of the Carnegie Spino where I implored him to stop smoking crack before posting his comments.
Yes, it was late when I posted, and yes, I was cranky. It gets the best of me sometimes.
Well Obviously i read the review or i wouldn’t have bothered commenting on it. I still don’t understand you 8/10 rating with so many negative things to say on the figure. I think you need to read your own review and try again.
No, if you had read it through, I didn’t ONLY bash it. I did say some positive things. Read through it again 😉
Cordy, we all know what a curmudgeon you are. The details are all wrong on the head?
Wait – how do you know the meaning of the word ‘DETAILS’ since your beloved Carnegie Spinosaurus HAS NONE???
This piece is a work of art that gets a 10/10 on any sane person’s scale.
It is NOT supposed to be a Foulkes or Strasserian paleo-sculpture.
It is a TOY, one which has duplicated the GENIUS of the late Stan Winston to a “T”.
THAT is why it won “Toy of the Year” honors. Something that NO Carnegie inferior Theropod need worry about.
Carnegie’s Spino is such a disappointment on so many levels that it makes me want to … nevermind… I HATE most Carnegie figures with a passion …
Very correct bucketfoot-al, it is a TOY, and as such it is truly a work of art…
…especially if you consider the price (grin).
What a depressing & negative review of a figure loved by so many collectors. Your 8/10 rating makes no sense as you bashed the figure during the entire review.
I like Papo Spinosaurus.
[…] Spinosaurus (Papo) Filed under: Papo, theropod — plesiosauria @ 3:31 pm This page is old, read the FULL REVIEW HERE […]