|
Post by pawnosuchus on Oct 26, 2011 15:39:14 GMT
Lib brings up an interesting point. They are toys. So how important is scientific accuracy versus aesthetics? Speaking for myself, I'd like everything to be 100% accurate but honestly probably would be unaware of many mistakes if not for the DTF members.. I think in many ways aesthetics may be more important. For instance, comparing the new Ceratosaurus with the old Battat one, I for one prefer the Battat. It seems more gracile and to me more alive and realistic. Which is more scientifically accurate? Don't know, but the new one just seems to be lacking something to me. I'm sure everyone has different preferences.
|
|
|
Post by pylraster on Oct 26, 2011 16:10:32 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. Agreed. If you don't like it, don't buy it. There's always the Carnegie Tylosaurus which is infinitely better. Toys are toys and even this so-called monstrosity will inevitably find a niche group that will appreciate it.
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Oct 26, 2011 16:21:40 GMT
It's true that Papo have never pretended that their line is one of 'scale replicas' or 'museum quality' models, so it's not fair to judge them as if they do. (If they DID do that and produced that Tylosaurus, then they'd really be asking for it.)
I've never seen any Papos in museums, but if they were eg. in London's Natural History Museum, they'd actually be a lot better than some of the garbage on sale.
Adam might have had a good point with their attachment of scientific names, though. Why 'Tylosaurus' for that thing? It doesn't resemble a real Tylosaurus at all, except (one could argue) the head.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Oct 26, 2011 16:29:39 GMT
I guess Libra has a MAIN point here... They are basically TOYS, all of them. Some are closer to what we now know about prehistoric dwellers, i repeat, WHAT WE NOW KNOW (simply because we'll never know how they truly looked like, so advocating an absolute accuracy in a certain restoration is just stupid), like Safari and those wonderful, wonderful japanese figures (Kaiyodo and such)... While others, like Papo, prefer to go with the mainstream view of dinosaurs instead of the more scientific one. Is this something we must fight with all our might? Paposaurs are really a danger for the mind of all those kids who maybe will grow with a wrong vision of dinosaurs and paleontology and so on? SERIOUSLY?! C'mon, gimme a break! No offense, but this sounds an helluva lot like when all those "paleo-enthusiasts" on the net hiss and groan at the mere mention of JP (or something similar) because, you know, paleontology is TOTALLY not like this, that dinosaur couldn't ABSOLUTELY behaved that way, etc, etc... Hell, even if i was only 7 years old when i first saw JP on the big screen i already knew that T.rex didn't have a vision based on movement, i already knew that Dilophosaurus didn't spit poison and had a frill, YET i didn't care and enjoyed the friggin' movie! What i want to say is that, ok, the more scientific-wise the better, but hey, as long as even just one kid (or an adult, for that matter), after watching a dino-movie or buying a dinosaur figure, even the worst possible, decides to learn about the science behind that movie (or toy) and figures by himself what's right and what's wrong, said movie and/or toy should be at least respected for what has done
|
|
|
Post by bowheadwhale on Oct 26, 2011 18:46:41 GMT
Papo actually MADE A TYLOSAURUS? That is what I read on the first posts of this topic. But I have never seen any Papo Tylosaurus. When did they release it?
|
|
|
Post by simon on Oct 26, 2011 19:15:45 GMT
Variety being the "spice of life", its actually good that there is such a wide spectrum of variations in the dino-figure-toy universe. Some figures, like the Schleich Brach. for example, are stunning in their own right, regardless of their anatomical inaccuracies per current thinking.
The Papo Spinosaurus is still one of the best dino-figures out there, despite massive anatomical inaccuracies.
As far as the Papo Mosasaurus, I don't think its THAT bad. The head looks very cool, and the body suggests that it has crawled out onto land (I know, I know...) ... now if it looked just like the Carnegie Tylosaurus or Mosasaurus figures you'd have no reason to buy it (OK, fire away ' 'I have no reason to buy it anyway!')
The Papo Plesiosaur, OTOH is HORRIBLE and beyond salvation.
What is really cool is that you can assemble a collection of 'retro figures' from Schleich, Bully, some Papo and old Carnegie figures and display it next to the 'new reconstruction' figures from Carnegie, WS, Battat, etc.
I bet they would make a very interesting contrast, no?
|
|
|
Post by zopteryx on Oct 26, 2011 19:35:19 GMT
It's true that Papo have never pretended that their line is one of 'scale replicas' or 'museum quality' models, so it's not fair to judge them as if they do. (If they DID do that and produced that Tylosaurus, then they'd really be asking for it.) I agree. Papo makes toys, very nicely done toys (in most cases), but toys none the less. They make what's popular, I bet when and if a JP 4 comes out, Papo will base their new toys off that. So without a popular movie to copy, it seems as if Papo doesn't really know what to do. I can forgive them for the two hideous marine reptiles, it shows that they're trying to branch out at least. But honestly, I'm tempted to carve out those figures' backs, but in a mast and sail, and insert some viking or Roman figures with oars! Now watch, we'll all have to eat our words as Papo comes out with some extraordinary dino at the end of the year! ;D
|
|
k907
Full Member
Posts: 100
|
Post by k907 on Oct 26, 2011 20:24:16 GMT
Papo actually MADE A TYLOSAURUS? That is what I read on the first posts of this topic. But I have never seen any Papo Tylosaurus. When did they release it? Umm did you even look at the 2012 figures thread?
|
|
|
Post by gwangi on Oct 26, 2011 21:45:08 GMT
Papo actually MADE A TYLOSAURUS? That is what I read on the first posts of this topic. But I have never seen any Papo Tylosaurus. When did they release it? Umm did you even look at the 2012 figures thread? Obviously she didn't. Bowhead, though K9 said it in the least polite way possible he is right, we've been discussing it on the last few pages of the 2012 thread. Some people just enjoy being mean for the sake of being mean I guess.
|
|
k907
Full Member
Posts: 100
|
Post by k907 on Oct 26, 2011 22:36:45 GMT
Umm did you even look at the 2012 figures thread? Obviously she didn't. Bowhead, though K9 said it in the least polite way possible he is right, we've been discussing it on the last few pages of the 2012 thread. Some people just enjoy being mean for the sake of being mean I guess. I actually didn't mean to sound rude, sorry about that. Anyways going back to the Tylosaurus, I think its unique in it's own way, despite its inaccuracies.
|
|
|
Post by tanystropheus on Oct 26, 2011 23:06:58 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Oct 26, 2011 23:10:23 GMT
As far as the Papo Mosasaurus [sic], I don't think its THAT bad. No, it really is. Until recently, mosasaurs were thought to be eel-like, with serpentine bodies. Then, an important Platecarpus specimen established that - at least in the case of the more advanced mosasaurs - they were actually convergently evolving a more shark or dolphin or ichthyosaur-like form. The Papo model is none of these things. It is the very earliest restoration of an ichthyosaur or plesiosaur (from the mid-19th century), ie. a highly outdated restoration of a distantly related marine reptile, with a Tylosaurus head grafted on Frankenstein-stylee. In other words, it's nutse. (Hey, I like the censorship! Shall I say that it's like the faecal excretion of a gentlemen who detested marine lizards? Yes, I shall.)
|
|
|
Post by Himmapaan on Oct 27, 2011 4:39:40 GMT
In other words, it's nutse. (Hey, I like the censorship! Shall I say that it's like the faecal excretion of a gentlemen who detested marine lizards? Yes, I shall.) Pardon?
|
|
|
Post by ikessauro on Oct 27, 2011 4:48:36 GMT
Now watch, we'll all have to eat our words as Papo comes out with some extraordinary dino at the end of the year! ;D Is that a proven statement that Papo is coming out with amazing dinos or just wishful thinking of you?
|
|
|
Post by zopteryx on Oct 27, 2011 17:03:31 GMT
Just wishful thinking Ikessauro, sorry if I got your hopes up. But it's still possible, as Papo has never come out with just one figure in recent years; so maybe another is still being kept secret.
|
|
|
Post by ikessauro on Oct 27, 2011 17:09:57 GMT
Just wishful thinking Ikessauro, sorry if I got your hopes up. But it's still possible, as Papo has never come out with just one figure in recent years; so maybe another is still being kept secret. Oh, that's ok, no problem. I really hope that they bring a sauropod or a really stunning theropod, because if they don't, it'll be worst than 2009, when they just did the Mammoth.
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Oct 27, 2011 17:44:32 GMT
In other words, it's nutse. (Hey, I like the censorship! Shall I say that it's like the faecal excretion of a gentlemen who detested marine lizards? Yes, I shall.) Pardon? I have no idea. I'll confess and say that this line might have been inspired by a lot of beer...
|
|
|
Post by Griffin on Oct 27, 2011 18:53:54 GMT
I was never a huge fan of papo stuff to begin with. I have the allosaurus and thats it. The fact that they came out with a nutty version of tylosaurus therefore doesn't really phase me too bad. We have the carnegie one which is good. Thats all that matters to me.
|
|
|
Post by bowheadwhale on Oct 27, 2011 19:45:42 GMT
Umm did you even look at the 2012 figures thread? Obviously she didn't. Bowhead, though K9 said it in the least polite way possible he is right, we've been discussing it on the last few pages of the 2012 thread. Some people just enjoy being mean for the sake of being mean I guess. Oh! I'm sorry. You're right, this is silly. But I'm still a relative new member and I still didn't visit all the topics, you know... As for the lack of politeness, that's OK, I'm not angry. I've seen worse and, honestly, I've done worse myself (yes, once, I was so angry that the other person saw everyone of my teeth and got a plastic bag in her face). So, don't worry. I'll go check the 2012 thread.
|
|
|
Post by bowheadwhale on Oct 27, 2011 19:54:00 GMT
OK, I just went to the 2012 thread. What do you have against the Papo tylosaurus? I think it's cute. It's represented the way it was back in the 1970's, so maybe it looks a little too retro with its upright head. But everyone here recognises a tylosaurus looking at it, don't we? If it was an Ichtyosaurus marked "Tylosaurus", I would understand the bad critics. But not in this case. It's Papo style to make ferocious-like JP-styled dinos. Why would the Tylosaurus be different from the previously released by the manufacturer?
|
|