|
Post by fooman666 on Dec 13, 2011 3:28:09 GMT
I like the thing simply as a gnarly movie monster. i'm all for producing and buying highly accurate figures. but at least 30% of my collection is made up of things I bought simply because they look cool. And thats what i think about the new Papo T.Rex. It simply looks cool.
sure, from a scientific standpoint the thing is a monstrosity. but from the standpoint of a child, or someone who grew up watching cheesy Dinosaur films and playing games like Turok and Dino Crisis, it's a cool looking Rex, wether it's accurate or not.
|
|
|
Post by lio99 on Dec 13, 2011 3:48:13 GMT
it's a cool looking Rex, wether it's accurate or not. i agree
|
|
|
Post by lucidstillness on Dec 13, 2011 3:54:10 GMT
I was wondering about that..it was said this was the only one on the shelf...maybe it was a demo piece that wasn't supposed to be for sale yet ? I'm pretty sure it wasn't a demo piece, since it was tagged, priced, and had no trouble going through the register. It also had a fairly loose jaw when I bought it, which implies kids had played with it and it had been picked over for some time. I'd be very surprised if it was the only one they had sold, considering how many families were there doing Christmas shopping. It looks like there is a pretty big divide on the Papo dinosaurs. I think both points are valid; these aren't scientifically accurate dinosaurs and the designs borrow heavily from various pop-culture film versions, but there is no denying that they are fantastic sculptures. I honestly would love to see Papo produce some really cutting-edge scientific depictions of dinosaurs, but their chimeric dinos are so well detailed and have so much personality that it's hard for me to say no to them. I own all the Paposaurs, and if the sculpting quality holds up I suspect I will continue to buy them. At the very least, the inaccuracies bring out the paleontologist in us, right?
|
|
|
Post by bokisaurus on Dec 13, 2011 6:46:11 GMT
;D ;D ;D Yap ;D That Papo Rex is... interesting ;D So now we know who the parents are of that Mojo Rex! LOL! ;D I can see the resemblance! The figure looks better with its mouth closed! Although I'm glad to see Papo do articulated figures again, I'm really not sure about this one... especially if it will cost a lot of $$ I'm sure I will get it at some point as it looks good with the original ones, just not a priority ;D
|
|
bfler
Junior Member
Posts: 97
|
Post by bfler on Dec 13, 2011 7:16:55 GMT
Even if the Rex is not accurate, the skin with all its details (skin folds etc...) looks much better and costlier than the skin of most of the figures of CollectA here in this thread.
The only thing I would change are the eyes. They look like that of a psychopath.
|
|
|
Post by dinodinkies on Dec 13, 2011 8:14:36 GMT
Even if the Rex is not accurate, the skin with all its details (skin folds etc...) looks much better and costlier than the skin of most of the figures of CollectA here in this thread. The only thing I would change are the eyes. They look like that of a psychopath. I would look psycho too when i got bashed all the time. And maybe just maybe, this is a trex who survived a comet, that is why he is skinny. And hè mutated longer arms because radiation. Which is its advantage because now hè can scratch itself behind its ears. So no more rexy bashing allright? You know you will all buy it. Hahaha.
|
|
|
Post by simon on Dec 13, 2011 8:29:27 GMT
Even if the Rex is not accurate, the skin with all its details (skin folds etc...) looks much better and costlier than the skin of most of the figures of CollectA here in this thread. The only thing I would change are the eyes. They look like that of a psychopath. But that's the beauty of this monstrosity, don't you see? You can't take your eyes off those evil eyes. They look very malevolently ALIVE, and its - DISTURBING to look at. Like a "Were-rex" (as in 'Werewolf') if you will. He is supposed to look like a psycho. The Anthony Perkins of Trex figures.....
|
|
|
Post by sid on Dec 13, 2011 8:54:07 GMT
A "Anthony Perkins- rex" even! ;D To me, it looks more like a battle-scarred dinosaur that sustained way more battles than his body could stand YET emerged victorious everytime, hence the somewhat deformed lower jaw and the berserker stare Really, do you think that, in reality, dinosaurs looked cool n' clean all the time?
|
|
|
Post by pawnosuchus on Dec 13, 2011 15:59:04 GMT
I have nothing against Papo. I have the Pachy and I really love the Allosaurus. No doubt these pieces have their inaccuracies however the new Trex is just horrible. We all have our different reasons for collecting and different tastes. For me personally I will not buy it and if I received it as a gift it would go directly into my reject bin. I can't get by the huge arms.
|
|
|
Post by Flipyap on Dec 13, 2011 16:07:15 GMT
So, I take it nobody else has been able to locate the Papo rex yet? So strange that it popped up out of nowhere, but maybe it just got shipped a little early. Im sure more will appear with time..I just hope they announce it soon. Who knows what else they may have planned.
|
|
|
Post by roselaar on Dec 13, 2011 19:11:12 GMT
Would have posted this earlier, but Proboards wouldn't let me. Still, I like my argument too much to throw it in the bin. And a movie monster is something that while based on reality was altered for a movie for effect (or poor decision making). Therefore, a toy based on one of those is a movie monster. Therefore, many Papo figures are movie monster toys. In that case, dinosaur movies don't exist. And if we apply this same argument to dinosaur figures, they don't exist either since all dinosaur toys are based on scientific speculation and we'll never know for sure what they look like, so reality will always remain nonexistent in the case of dinosaur figures and only the effect of these being dinosaurs (or poor decision making) remains. Dinosaur toys are just as much a fictional construct as dinosaur FX in movies. That's why none of the same species of dinosaurs' toys look alike, compared to, let's say, elephant figures. We know full well what an elephant looks like, so the number of accurate elephant toys is much higher than the number of accurate dinosaur toys. Of course, some dinosaur toys are more accurate than others, but a fully accurate dinosaur toy will never exist. To those collecting only the most accurate of dinosaur toys, the number of toys you should own, is: none.
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Dec 13, 2011 19:12:53 GMT
Firstly, I should point out that Niroot wasn't talking about the toy, but about all the usual arguments springing up again. ;D I can't get by the huge arms. That's my biggest problem with it. Like I said though, I'll probably still buy it anyway. It's...interesting, I'll give 'em that, and not SO hideously wrong as the scaly Oviraptor.
|
|
|
Post by zopteryx on Dec 13, 2011 20:33:53 GMT
Wow, apparently a lot can happen in two days... First let me say that I think CollectA finished strong with that Mapusaurus. The color scheme doesn't thrill me, but otherwise it's excellent. And thanks Dan for posting sizes, can't wait to see how big the rest of them are. As for Papo, I have mixed feelings. This rex is a big improvement over the old figure, but I still think I'm going to pass on it; it's not worth the $$$ in my opinion. Movie "monster" or not, there is no excuse for those elongated arms. I have no problem with it looking emaciated, it adds character to the figure, but the enlarged lower jaw and mega-teeth ruin the head for me. And then there's the pose and color, which seem (to me anyway) like a knock-off of the 2011 Safari rex. I think they would have been better off just making the V-rex from King Kong.
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Dec 13, 2011 20:54:14 GMT
Would have posted this earlier, but Proboards wouldn't let me. Still, I like my argument too much to throw it in the bin. And a movie monster is something that while based on reality was altered for a movie for effect (or poor decision making). Therefore, a toy based on one of those is a movie monster. Therefore, many Papo figures are movie monster toys. In that case, dinosaur movies don't exist. And if we apply this same argument to dinosaur figures, they don't exist either since all dinosaur toys are based on scientific speculation and we'll never know for sure what they look like, so reality will always remain nonexistent in the case of dinosaur figures and only the effect of these being dinosaurs (or poor decision making) remains. Dinosaur toys are just as much a fictional construct as dinosaur FX in movies. That's why none of the same species of dinosaurs' toys look alike, compared to, let's say, elephant figures. We know full well what an elephant looks like, so the number of accurate elephant toys is much higher than the number of accurate dinosaur toys. Of course, some dinosaur toys are more accurate than others, but a fully accurate dinosaur toy will never exist. To those collecting only the most accurate of dinosaur toys, the number of toys you should own, is: none. Now shut up, paleontology nerds! ;D I'm sorry that for some reason JP is your reference of choice--but do not EVER tell me to shut up again. You may think you are being cute or funny, but it's just rude.
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Dec 13, 2011 21:05:32 GMT
Now shut up, paleontology nerds! ;D NEVERRRRR!!
|
|
|
Post by Seijun on Dec 13, 2011 21:40:14 GMT
I thought roselaar was being cute. I don't think you should take it personally sbell.
I wonder what the new papo rex would look like if it was customized to have normal arms, how much that might improve the overall appearance...?
|
|
|
Post by sid on Dec 13, 2011 21:45:22 GMT
Would have posted this earlier, but Proboards wouldn't let me. Still, I like my argument too much to throw it in the bin. And a movie monster is something that while based on reality was altered for a movie for effect (or poor decision making). Therefore, a toy based on one of those is a movie monster. Therefore, many Papo figures are movie monster toys. In that case, dinosaur movies don't exist. And if we apply this same argument to dinosaur figures, they don't exist either since all dinosaur toys are based on scientific speculation and we'll never know for sure what they look like, so reality will always remain nonexistent in the case of dinosaur figures and only the effect of these being dinosaurs (or poor decision making) remains. Dinosaur toys are just as much a fictional construct as dinosaur FX in movies. That's why none of the same species of dinosaurs' toys look alike, compared to, let's say, elephant figures. We know full well what an elephant looks like, so the number of accurate elephant toys is much higher than the number of accurate dinosaur toys. Of course, some dinosaur toys are more accurate than others, but a fully accurate dinosaur toy will never exist. To those collecting only the most accurate of dinosaur toys, the number of toys you should own, is: none. Now shut up, paleontology nerds! ;D Couldn't say it better, especially the last sentence ;D ;D As i always say, when it comes to prehistoric animals, real accuracy is just a myth... Bear in mind, this doesn't justify truly flat-out WRONG restorations still passed as "scientific" or past misconceptions of a certain species (as much as i LOVE the JP raptors i'd never say that Deinonychus Antihrropus really looked like that), but sure as hell it'd make all the "purists" think deeper when it comes to criticize a certain dinosaur restoration To Sbell: i'm pretty sure Roselaar wasn't trying to mock you, getting all angry for just a post in an internet forum is not very professional, IMHO... Here, i guess, we are all enough intelligent to talk about our hobby without ruining the fun of it, am i right or what?
|
|
|
Post by simon on Dec 13, 2011 21:47:03 GMT
I thought roselaar was being cute. I don't think you should take it personally sbell. I wonder what the new papo rex would look like if it was customized to have normal arms, how much that might improve the overall appearance...? Well, unless you doubled the depth of the torso and got rid of the lower jaw, not by much....
|
|
|
Post by dinodinkies on Dec 13, 2011 21:52:40 GMT
Well i think everyone may share their opinion. But i must say, how can you talk about accurate when you never know what it looked like, ok t rex papo has longer arms. But it changes all the time how they look, how they moved etc. No feathers, feathers. Where does it end. They put them together how they think they look. But since no one has seen one Alive how can you talk about accurate? I think we collect dinosaurs how we want to see them. Beauty is in THE eye of the beholder.
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Dec 13, 2011 22:02:58 GMT
The forearms of Tyrannosaurus ARE known, though. It's not a matter of conjecture or open to artistic license as to how long they were. Sure, it USED to be...prior to about 1989 *skips away expecting 200 more pages of arguing*
|
|