|
|
Post by thagomizer on Sept 3, 2008 2:20:44 GMT
I still don't see what's the problem with the Papo/Procon Deluxe/Jurassic Park T.rex...I mean,maybe the arms are a lil' too long,but the rest is spot-on and really accurate in my opinion...When i went to the Natural History Museum of Milan,i looked VERY closely (analyzing every bone,every bump and crack) at the T.rex skeleton (Stan) which is mounted there,and (surprise,surprise!) i found almost NOTHING different from the Stan Winston restoration which appeared in the JP franchise...Same "box-ish" and robust head,same body,same tail...Really,i don't see what's the problem with the JP Rex  Really? Here's the skull of a T. rex vs. the head of the JP rex:   The JP rex has much bigger "horns" or crests over the eyes than the real thing, which makes it look almost like an allosaur. I'm guessing they added this to make it look scary and demonic. The real rex only had very small, unobtrusive hornlets that were kind of circular, making its profile much smoother. Look at the Battat and Safari rexes for how this should be done. |
|
|
|
Post by thagomizer on Sept 3, 2008 2:26:14 GMT
Here is a post that hopefully will answer Thagomizer, Bolesey, and Webdragon (for the idea). So Bolesey, I used both the Papo T-rex and Safari 2008 diplo for size comparison. Thagomizer, here are some close up of various diplo feet. So what do yah think? I'm sure you will say that they are all wrong, but who's the best? I included the models faces,too ;D Webragon, for your comment about the proposed AMNH T-rex display. Close enough? Papo and Procon T-rex look good together, don't you think? Thanks for the pics! The Battat Diplo is the only one to get it right. Note that the other ones aren't columns, and all have separate toes with claws. Sauropods only had one claw, the big thumb spike, and their footprints are horseshoe-shaped, meaning the feet formed vertical columns, walking on their tippy-fingers so to speak. This went to extremes in titanosaurs, which lost their fingers all together and walked on stumps made up of palm bones. |
|
|
|
Post by bolesey on Sept 3, 2008 3:00:59 GMT
The JP interpretation is not one I would favour, or how I interpret it. Though when you account for how it's generally thought that any horns were probably larger than the bony cores preserved in fossils, I think it's not that far off the range of possibility.
My main issue with the JP design is that they turn the hornlets into a brow ridge, where I think it's more likely they were somewhat separated and distinct. They do distinguish it from the allosaur by having the larger bumps behind the eyes rather than before.
In Jurassic Park this doesn't bother me. It's entertainment, and besides, in the context of the film they're not necessarily exact genetic recreations of dinosaurs.
When it comes to paleoart, it does bother me. When I look at 'paleoart', I want the artist to have actually studied the bones, and done their own interpretation. When you see someone copying the JP T.rex, not only does it show that they've not done their homework and copied, it shows that they can't even pick accurate stuff to copy.
|
|
|
|
Post by bolesey on Sept 3, 2008 3:10:03 GMT
Here is a post that hopefully will answer Thagomizer, Bolesey, and Webdragon (for the idea). So Bolesey, I used both the Papo T-rex and Safari 2008 diplo for size comparison. Thagomizer, here are some close up of various diplo feet. So what do yah think? I'm sure you will say that they are all wrong, but who's the best? I included the models faces,too ;D Webragon, for your comment about the proposed AMNH T-rex display. Close enough? Papo and Procon T-rex look good together, don't you think? Thanks for the extra pics... the Procon is remarkably close to the Papo T.rex, especially in the head area, where even the paint work is similar. They do display well together. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by tomhet on Sept 3, 2008 4:05:09 GMT
Hey Boki. Thanks again for the awesome pics.
|
|
|
|
Post by sid on Sept 3, 2008 11:43:33 GMT
I still don't see what's the problem with the Papo/Procon Deluxe/Jurassic Park T.rex...I mean,maybe the arms are a lil' too long,but the rest is spot-on and really accurate in my opinion...When i went to the Natural History Museum of Milan,i looked VERY closely (analyzing every bone,every bump and crack) at the T.rex skeleton (Stan) which is mounted there,and (surprise,surprise!) i found almost NOTHING different from the Stan Winston restoration which appeared in the JP franchise...Same "box-ish" and robust head,same body,same tail...Really,i don't see what's the problem with the JP Rex Really? Here's the skull of a T. rex vs. the head of the JP rex: The JP rex has much bigger "horns" or crests over the eyes than the real thing, which makes it look almost like an allosaur. I'm guessing they added this to make it look scary and demonic. The real rex only had very small, unobtrusive hornlets that were kind of circular, making its profile much smoother. Look at the Battat and Safari rexes for how this should be done. Bear in mind,Thag,that when the Rex was alive,his eyes crests were much more prominent due to the keratin (for protection) which was lost in the fossilization...Even some paleontologists admitted that,probably,keratin enlarged T.rex preorbital horns as much as 2 or 3 times  |
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Sept 3, 2008 13:38:56 GMT
Really? Here's the skull of a T. rex vs. the head of the JP rex: The JP rex has much bigger "horns" or crests over the eyes than the real thing, which makes it look almost like an allosaur. I'm guessing they added this to make it look scary and demonic. The real rex only had very small, unobtrusive hornlets that were kind of circular, making its profile much smoother. Look at the Battat and Safari rexes for how this should be done. Bear in mind,Thag,that when the Rex was alive,his eyes crests were much more prominent due to the keratin (for protection) which was lost in the fossilization...Even some paleontologists admitted that,probably,keratin enlarged T.rex preorbital horns as much as 2 or 3 times Keratin is for covering HORNS, like on a Triceratops or a cow. The bumps on a T rex skull would better be referred to as processes--small raised areas of bone that mostly serve for muscle attachment and some facial sculpture. A human's zygomatic arch (cheek bones) or mental process (chin protruberance) are good examples. The 'horns' on a rex are not horn cores like ay I've ever seen. Speaking of Stan though--right now a cast of his entire head is littering the lab in my Centre! If I can find them, I will go see these 'horn cores' for myself. |
|
|
|
Post by sid on Sept 3, 2008 20:18:56 GMT
Keratin is for covering HORNS, like on a Triceratops or a cow. The bumps on a T rex skull would better be referred to as processes--small raised areas of bone that mostly serve for muscle attachment and some facial sculpture. A human's zygomatic arch (cheek bones) or mental process (chin protruberance) are good examples. The 'horns' on a rex are not horn cores like ay I've ever seen. Speaking of Stan though--right now a cast of his entire head is littering the lab in my Centre! If I can find them, I will go see these 'horn cores' for myself. Thanks for the explanation  By the way,you're really lucky to have that cast in your lab...  |
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Sept 3, 2008 20:39:37 GMT
Keratin is for covering HORNS, like on a Triceratops or a cow. The bumps on a T rex skull would better be referred to as processes--small raised areas of bone that mostly serve for muscle attachment and some facial sculpture. A human's zygomatic arch (cheek bones) or mental process (chin protruberance) are good examples. The 'horns' on a rex are not horn cores like ay I've ever seen. Speaking of Stan though--right now a cast of his entire head is littering the lab in my Centre! If I can find them, I will go see these 'horn cores' for myself. Thanks for the explanation By the way,you're really lucky to have that cast in your lab... It has been fun--it let us compare our local cause celebre, Scotty--turns out the skull is much longer than we thought (found out there is more to the nasal and premaxilla than we knew). On top of finding the braincase in a block over the winter, Scotty is estimated to possibly be the most massive T rex yet (according to P Currie). Not necessarily the tallest or longest, just overall 'big' in terms of bone thicknesses and size of certain elemetns (like the femur). And, why yes, my plan is to find a way to create a replica/toy of Scotty, and our other fossil critters, someday. How did you know? |
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Sept 3, 2008 21:25:18 GMT
;D Great pictures, the Papo and Procon Rex do look like they were made for each other.
|
|
|
|
Post by sid on Sept 3, 2008 22:06:58 GMT
Thanks for the explanation By the way,you're really lucky to have that cast in your lab... It has been fun--it let us compare our local cause celebre, Scotty--turns out the skull is much longer than we thought (found out there is more to the nasal and premaxilla than we knew). On top of finding the braincase in a block over the winter, Scotty is estimated to possibly be the most massive T rex yet (according to P Currie). Not necessarily the tallest or longest, just overall 'big' in terms of bone thicknesses and size of certain elemetns (like the femur). And, why yes, my plan is to find a way to create a replica/toy of Scotty, and our other fossil critters, someday. How did you know? Good ol' Scotty...He was a REALLY big boy,isn't it? Wow,if someday you'll manage to create your own dinosaur toy line...Well,stay sure that i'll buy 'em  |
|
|
|
Post by bolesey on Sept 3, 2008 22:36:58 GMT
Thanks for the explanation By the way,you're really lucky to have that cast in your lab... It has been fun--it let us compare our local cause celebre, Scotty--turns out the skull is much longer than we thought (found out there is more to the nasal and premaxilla than we knew). On top of finding the braincase in a block over the winter, Scotty is estimated to possibly be the most massive T rex yet (according to P Currie). Not necessarily the tallest or longest, just overall 'big' in terms of bone thicknesses and size of certain elemetns (like the femur). And, why yes, my plan is to find a way to create a replica/toy of Scotty, and our other fossil critters, someday. How did you know? I saw some pics of Scotty recently, it's funny how each skull somehow has it's own personality. Especially with T.rex. . There's something very distinctive and appealing about Scotty. |
|
|
|
Post by bokisaurus on Sept 3, 2008 23:31:31 GMT
Luck me then for snagging Mike's sets LOL. I wish Seattle has some cool museums with dinosaur exhibit. Burke and science center are both kinda boring. I really wish I had time to visit the Denver museum, from what I heard they have really good dinosaur exhibit.
|
|
|
|
Post by Blade-of-the-Moon on Sept 4, 2008 0:30:57 GMT
Our local museum is pretty new and is only focusing on mammals really...they did do the A T-REX Named SUE exhibit....which my family attended and loved .. the mammals and crocs are nice...but nothing compared to a dinosaur...lol..I'll go back when do some other Dino-related exhibits... |
|
