|
Post by Dinotoyforum on Oct 25, 2011 11:52:34 GMT
Cooee dinotoyforumees! This was originally a response to the 2012 thread but as it goes a bit off topic, I thought I'd set up a new thread for it. I sometimes wonder why Papo bother attaching scientific names to some of their figures, surely just call them monsters and be done with it. Is the name 'Tylosaure' really going to bring in the crowds? They are exquisitely produced fantasy creatures for sure, but personally I like prehistoric animals. Papo are intriguing in this regard. Whereas most companies strive for accuracy and even incorporate an educational aspect into their marketing strategy, Papo have gone the other way entirely. One could even consider Papo implicitly counter-educational as they don't include any disclaimer and can often be bought in museums etc. As an educator myself, I wonder if Papo's strategy could be potentially harmful, could their figures be mistaken as an educational resource? Incidentally, I'm not saying either strategy is superior from a business perspective, time will tell. I do know that the cost of getting scientific input is negligible, I have done it for free and I suspect most palaeontologists would too, so that isn't a key factor. Or am I getting my knickers in a twist, are they just toys Just thought it was an interesting observation.
|
|
|
Post by gwangi on Oct 25, 2011 13:42:07 GMT
I say they're just toys and the only ones that really care are those of us that know they're bad toys. Everyone else will like it just fine. If we want Papo to know we're disappointed just don't buy the toy, their language is that of money. As for being educationally dangerous I don't see how these will do anything worse than the scores of other incorrect prehistoric toys out there...on top of the poor science demonstrated in just about every other popular culture outlet regarding prehistoric life. Even if they do...so what, does the general public really care that much what a Tylosaur looks like? If hands are pronated or not? Those who have enough interest generated by things like this will seek out to further educate themselves and that is all you can really ask for.
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Oct 25, 2011 13:49:41 GMT
I tend to agree--Papo rides more on a couple of things. First, JP fandom--the JP Toys forum loves them, because they are the only JP-like new toys that come out regularly, although that well appears to have run dry for them--I suspect lawyers are involved.
Second, people that are impressed with sculpting detail. Even if the animals themselves aren't right. How hard is it to leave the teeth off of a Pteranodon? How hard is it to leave the skin of a marine reptile smooth (and not bend the neck like a duck)?
They did well with their last few ceratopsians, but otherwise they almost seem to want to make figures that are distinctly incorrect. I suppose that makes them distinct.
What we need is for educational institutions to stop carrying them.
|
|
|
Post by Dan on Oct 25, 2011 13:53:35 GMT
I do find it a little tragic, as their figures - like those of Schleich - perpetuate antiquated ideas and images about prehistoric life. Companies like Safari have shown that aesthetic quality and scientific accuracy are not mutually exclusive. To some extent, it could be seen as a cyclical problem. People see the dinosaurs of say, Jurassic Park, and they want to buy figures that resemble those dinosaurs. In that sense, I think popular culture dictates where the incentive lies for manufacturers.
|
|
|
Post by Minnesota Jones on Oct 25, 2011 14:49:50 GMT
Papo figures are definately amazing on detail, that's a given. I can see both sides of this coin. Yeah, they're toys. But (always a but) they're not as accurate in detail as Carnegie's collection. Playing Devil's advocate, they don't state they're made in conjunction with a museum (like Carnegie, or Boston that worked with Battat for example). So, will I get the new ones? Probably, I'm a completist, what can I say? But I do agree I'd like them to move towards more accurate figures. I also loved the JP connection, but I'm sure (like posted above), Universal probably came down on them with the hammer for copying their intellectual property. Too bad. I would have loved to see a Papo JP style Brachiosaur or Gallimimus. Or both!
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Oct 25, 2011 18:48:26 GMT
The Papo centrosaurines are actually bloody brilliant. They're not PERFECT by any means, but they get a lot right (the hands!) that other companies get wrong over and over again. But yeah, that mosasaur...wow. I thought the Oviraptor was bad, but that goes beyond taking the cake - that's kidnapping Mr Kipling and demanding a multimillion Euro ransom.
Still, when it comes to perpetuating myths about Mesozoic fauna certain institutions do do a very good job of that on their own, without stocking any Papo (like the NHM, with its scaly dromaeosaurs and godawful CG 'art' that appears in official publications and/or posters).
|
|
|
Post by Himmapaan on Oct 25, 2011 19:38:05 GMT
I can only say that I'm disappointed, considering the steps in the right direction they have recently taken. Other than that, I do mostly agree with Gwangi and Marc. Those who are truly interested will seek further knowledge. And there are, sadly, far worse toys and imagery being offered by no less an institution than the NHM.
I'm also disappointed because, whilst I'm certainly no Papo apologist, I do have a great deal of appreciation for their merits and was happy to have faith in seeing them progress in terms of accuracy. This latest piece thwarts it and only lends more fuel to the derision of their detractors.
|
|
|
Post by roselaar on Oct 25, 2011 20:00:35 GMT
They are somewhat detractable to the advancement of modern theories about prehistoric creatures, but at least not as bad as Schleich because of their more limited release (museums not withstanding, I don't see Paposaurs in any regular toy stores here). Also, the ignorant common public still considers Schleich the summum of dinosaur toys (in the Benelux at least), and despite some of Papo's more recent flawed sculpts their quality is still way above Schleich.
But Safari, and these days Collecta too, kicks Papo's ass.
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Oct 25, 2011 21:12:52 GMT
They are somewhat detractable to the advancement of modern theories about prehistoric creatures, but at least not as bad as Schleich because of their more limited release (museums not withstanding, I don't see Paposaurs in any regular toy stores here). It's the same here in the UK. (I've said this before, but the only time I saw dinosaur toys on sale in the Netherlands, they were CollectA. But I wasn't actively looking for them, they were in the Naturalis gift shop.)
|
|
|
Post by tanystropheus on Oct 25, 2011 22:00:39 GMT
This thread should (appropriately) be called, "Tylo on Trial". If we were to use science as a criterion, Papo's accuracy would be considered leaps and bounds ahead of its competitors, including Carnegie. Scientifically speaking, the skin is the largest organ in the body (as per surface area), and Papo models are recognized as the premier in terms of sculpting (skin, sculpt and scales). With the exception of the Oviraptor and Tylosaurus (and possibly "Nessie", to a smaller degree), Papo is instantly recognized for their exceptional, natural and realistic (signature) textures. By monopolizing the skin department, Papo will have no competitors in the foreseeable future. To put things in perspective, please recall that most Papo dinosaurs have roughly 1-2 scientific errors. This is on par with the industry standard (e.g Safari Ltd.) Safari dinosaurs often have over-sized feet, unusual psychomotor agitation of the upper arms, pronated arms, elephant feet, inaccurate number of digits, blunted teeth, and crow's feet. Similar to the Papo Velociraptor, the Safari Velociraptor is also devoid of feathers. So why are we so bothered by the 1-2 idiosyncrasies found in Papo models, with respect to their Safari. Ltd. counterparts. The reasons are simple: 1) It is far easier for Papo to assume leadership of the dinosaur market than it is for Safari Ltd. All Papo has to do is consult with paleontologists (and many paleontologists are willing to provide free consults). However, for Carnegie or Wild Safari to integrate superior paint application or sculpting procedures would add to costs, significantly. 2) As paleontologists, Papo 's errors (although superficial, and easily modifiable) appear to get under people's skin (no pun intended) for being particularly irksome (e.g fossilized horns, teeth on the Parasaurolophus, and Pternanodon). These errors are usually slight but are seen as offensive because it challenges the paleontologists understanding of their world.
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Oct 25, 2011 22:23:40 GMT
If we were to use science as a criterion, Papo's accuracy would be considered leaps and bounds ahead of its competitors, including Carnegie. Mate. No. Just no. The Carnegie line doesn't have a feathered Velociraptor, which I think is a serious black mark, but it DOES have a feathered Oviraptor (and a Caudipteryx, and a Microraptor etc.). More importantly, the Carnegie models in the last few years have been far more anatomically accurate than anything Papo have produced bar the centrosaurines. None of the modern Carnegie theropods have bunny hands. The Wild Safari line still has its faults, but their new T. rex is more true to the real thing than the Papo, which is obviously Jurassic Park inspired. Anatomical proportions trump aesthetics any day when it comes to 'science as a criterion'. Besides, everyone knows that the best models are Japanese. If only they weren't such a sod to get hold of...
|
|
|
Post by Himmapaan on Oct 25, 2011 23:04:26 GMT
Besides, everyone knows that the best models are Japanese. If only they weren't such a sod to get hold of... Indisputably.
|
|
|
Post by dyscrasia on Oct 26, 2011 0:13:15 GMT
Besides, everyone knows that the best models are Japanese. If only they weren't such a sod to get hold of... I think I am one of the few lucky members here that can easily get a hold of those kind of models... But on the other hand, trying to obtain dinosaur toys (models) from any western company such as Safari, Collecta, Papo, etc from here is a real pain in the ass and when I eventually get one, the expenses are ludicrous...
|
|
|
Post by Seijun on Oct 26, 2011 0:18:51 GMT
I will happily send our US dinos to you in exchange for Japanese ones!
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Oct 26, 2011 0:39:48 GMT
This thread should (appropriately) be called, "Tylo on Trial". If we were to use science as a criterion, Papo's accuracy would be considered leaps and bounds ahead of its competitors, including Carnegie. Scientifically speaking, the skin is the largest organ in the body (as per surface area), and Papo models are recognized as the premier in terms of sculpting (skin, sculpt and scales). With the exception of the Oviraptor and Tylosaurus (and possibly "Nessie", to a smaller degree), Papo is instantly recognized for their exceptional, natural and realistic (signature) textures. By monopolizing the skin department, Papo will have no competitors in the foreseeable future. To put things in perspective, please recall that most Papo dinosaurs have roughly 1-2 scientific errors. This is on par with the industry standard (e.g Safari Ltd.) Safari dinosaurs often have over-sized feet, unusual psychomotor agitation of the upper arms, pronated arms, elephant feet, inaccurate number of digits, blunted teeth, and crow's feet. Similar to the Papo Velociraptor, the Safari Velociraptor is also devoid of feathers. So why are we so bothered by the 1-2 idiosyncrasies found in Papo models, with respect to their Safari. Ltd. counterparts. The reasons are simple: 1) It is far easier for Papo to assume leadership of the dinosaur market than it is for Safari Ltd. All Papo has to do is consult with paleontologists (and many paleontologists are willing to provide free consults). However, for Carnegie or Wild Safari to integrate superior paint application or sculpting procedures would add to costs, significantly. 2) As paleontologists, Papo 's errors (although superficial, and easily modifiable) appear to get under people's skin (no pun intended) for being particularly irksome (e.g fossilized horns, teeth on the Parasaurolophus, and Pternanodon). These errors are usually slight but are seen as offensive because it challenges the paleontologists understanding of their world. Sorry, but no. Papo makes movie monsters, nothing more. Even when they make a good ceratopsian, they get lazy and reuse the body with a different head the following year. And their old-fashioned sense of dino colours is rather disappointing. I thought we were long past the days of dull green/grey dinos. Good skin texture can't make up for poor science. The skin may be the largest organ, but the skeleton and associated muscle are far more important to the reconstructions.
|
|
|
Post by gwangi on Oct 26, 2011 2:04:32 GMT
I will happily send our US dinos to you in exchange for Japanese ones! I think a lot of us would.
|
|
|
Post by tanystropheus on Oct 26, 2011 3:58:06 GMT
But Safari, and these days Collecta too, kicks Papo's ass. I don't think Collecta is quite there yet. Give them a year or two....they are moving in the right direction, though. Speaking of Collecta, I need to pick up their Attenborosaurus, Plateosaurus and Dacentrurus. Too bad I exhausted all my cash on electronics and gadgets
|
|
|
Post by fooman666 on Oct 26, 2011 9:19:38 GMT
i doubt they will have any serious effect on the education of dinosaur fans, as has been said in the above posts people who are really interested in the topic will seek out the correct information. Papo is very hit and miss when it comes to prehistoric creatures, much like other companies, their allosaurus was fantastic as are their ceratopsians (maybe minus the Triceratops). i think their problem is that they use popular images of Dinosaurs as a basis for their figures, as seen by the JP "series" and the horrendus oviraptor and plesiosaur. they aim their products at the general public and not at serious collectors. the problem lies in the fact that the general public don't care about accuracy, they buy what looks cool.
|
|
|
Post by EmperorDinobot on Oct 26, 2011 11:43:37 GMT
I'm with DTF on this one 100%. Papo sucks. I've always said it, and I always will, and for someone who enjoys toys, Papo isn't doing something right. It is WRONG, just plain WRONG what they did to that Tylosaurus.
|
|
|
Post by Libraraptor on Oct 26, 2011 14:37:38 GMT
They are just toys. We must not everestimate this topic. I love Papo for they are Papo, that is scientifically wrong, but aesthetically very appealing. They had exactly two real misses as for this aesthetic appeal, and these are their marine reptiles. And noone has to buy these if he does not want to.
|
|