|
Post by Seijun on Oct 27, 2011 19:57:22 GMT
It doesn't even look like tylosaurs from the 70's though.
|
|
|
Post by pawnosuchus on Oct 27, 2011 20:13:27 GMT
I still think it bears a strong resemblance to the orginal green Mosasaur that Carnegie made years ago. Maybe someone could post a picture of them. I'd do it but I'm a technological dinosaur myself and usually get my Step-son to post pictures. (The comet hit me when cell-phones came out.)
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Oct 27, 2011 22:07:13 GMT
I still think it bears a strong resemblance to the orginal green Mosasaur that Carnegie made years ago. Maybe someone could post a picture of them. I'd do it but I'm a technological dinosaur myself and usually get my Step-son to post pictures. (The comet hit me when cell-phones came out.) Here you go. It does not quite have the 'duck' neck that everyone seems to think it does:
|
|
|
Post by bokisaurus on Oct 27, 2011 23:17:45 GMT
ha ha ;D , see what you started, Adam? My simple opinion is that they are just toys and not museum displays. Also, as far as educational value, I don't think they are harmful at all. In fact, I think they are helpful in that they appeal to kids (who are the MAIN target audience), and makes them interested in dinos. Really, most of us probably got our first introduction to dinosaur toy by owning/seeing some really awful Chinasaurus. Yet, despite how bad they are, it helped develop our interest in dinosaurs. I know they did mine. Also, Papo, unlike Carnegie, Battat, Schleich, Toyway, does not have any sort of official museum endorsement (they don't claim to either). It's a different thing if they did. I'm not a professional paleontologist, or claim to know a lot about dinosaur anatomy to be too critical or too concerned about accuracy in toy figures. The whole reason I collect them is to have as many variations and interpretations as possible. If all the toy companies produced the same level of aesthetic quality and accuracy, then collecting would be boring and pointless, IMHO. Therefore, I find Papo not guilty! ;D
|
|
|
Post by Seijun on Oct 28, 2011 2:48:24 GMT
I think the carnegie moso looks more "retro" than the papo tylo. Maybe if the papo had included dorsal spines, and didn't have elephant skin. As it is, the papo tylo just looks wrong, even compared to retro renditions.
|
|
|
Post by tanystropheus on Oct 28, 2011 3:53:02 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Libraraptor on Oct 28, 2011 13:19:34 GMT
Wow, this thread became an instant blockbuster! Can't think of another one except from the 2012 figures one that got that much attention in the last weeks.
|
|
|
Post by Seijun on Oct 28, 2011 17:22:42 GMT
I think most of the attention comes from the fact that we all expected "more" from papo than this. We certainly know that they are capable of much better figures, and they seemed to be going up in terms of accuracy (allo, pachy, styrac) and then they hit us with nessie and this eel-croc thing.
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Oct 28, 2011 17:26:57 GMT
I think most of the attention comes from the fact that we all expected "more" from papo than this. We certainly know that they are capable of much better figures, and they seemed to be going up in terms of accuracy (allo, pachy, styrac) and then they hit us with nessie and this eel-croc thing. Agreed. Like I said, Papo don't make claims that their models are 'scale replicas', or 'approved by scientists', but they have produced some nice figures nevertheless. I think the main problem people have with the 'Tylosaurus' is that it's just bafflingly awful. I mean, sure, the Plesiosaurus and Oviraptor were awful too, but they were awful in ways we could understand - the Oviraptor was just very 1990s, and the plesiosaur followed common memes (like the swan neck). The Tylo though...WTF?
|
|
|
Post by Libraraptor on Oct 28, 2011 20:13:41 GMT
Horridus, I like you introducing the meme idea to our common reception of dinosaurs!
And have I never seen a fuss like this about the Schleich failures because those were lost from the beginning? ;D
|
|
rsknol
New Member
DinosaurCollector
Posts: 41
|
Post by rsknol on Oct 28, 2011 20:27:14 GMT
|
|
|
Post by gfxtwin on Oct 29, 2011 15:07:22 GMT
I don't understand the undercurrent of Papo dislike that diffuses throughout these boards. Not while so many other companies like Procon/collectA, Wild Safari, Schleich, Salvat get the amount of love they do here. Papo's dinosaurs really are no more inaccurate than those figures. Usually there is about one glaring error in the majority of papo's recent best work (a pachy with extended horns, a styrac with a slightly long neck, an allo with incorrect wrists, an Anklyosaurid with narrow hips). And yet when these other companies release figures that look so out of proportion that they resemble cartoons, where is the uprising?
I think I know why there is a continuous animosity towards Papo, though. I think it's because they are closer than just about anyone to making the perfect dinosaur figs, yet they keep making stupid, simple mistakes. It can be infuriating, I understand. Of course, their inconsistency can go a bit deeper than that. The new Tylo is absolutely repulsive.
Still, let's tone down the papo criticisms until everyone is ready to take a good hard look at some of the other beloved companies this blog reviews.
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Oct 29, 2011 16:42:31 GMT
I don't understand the undercurrent of Papo dislike that diffuses throughout these boards. Not while so many other companies like Procon/collectA, Wild Safari, Schleich, Salvat get the amount of love they do here. Papo's dinosaurs really are no more inaccurate than those figures. Usually there is about one glaring error in the majority of papo's recent best work (a pachy with extended horns, a styrac with a slightly long neck, an allo with incorrect wrists, an Anklyosaurid with narrow hips). And yet when these other companies release figures that look so out of proportion that they resemble cartoons, where is the uprising? I think I know why there is a continuous animosity towards Papo, though. I think it's because they are closer than just about anyone to making the perfect dinosaur figs, yet they keep making stupid, simple mistakes. It can be infuriating, I understand. Of course, their inconsistency can go a bit deeper than that. The new Tylo is absolutely repulsive. Still, let's tone down the papo criticisms until everyone is ready to take a good hard look at some of the other beloved companies this blog reviews. Maybe some of us just think Papo is highly overrated? Sculpted skin detail is not the end all and be all of a dinosaur toy. And that Tylosaurus just proves how bad they can get.
|
|
|
Post by bowheadwhale on Oct 29, 2011 19:01:51 GMT
I don't understand the undercurrent of Papo dislike that diffuses throughout these boards. Not while so many other companies like Procon/collectA, Wild Safari, Schleich, Salvat get the amount of love they do here. Papo's dinosaurs really are no more inaccurate than those figures. Usually there is about one glaring error in the majority of papo's recent best work (a pachy with extended horns, a styrac with a slightly long neck, an allo with incorrect wrists, an Anklyosaurid with narrow hips). And yet when these other companies release figures that look so out of proportion that they resemble cartoons, where is the uprising? I think I know why there is a continuous animosity towards Papo, though. I think it's because they are closer than just about anyone to making the perfect dinosaur figs, yet they keep making stupid, simple mistakes. It can be infuriating, I understand. Of course, their inconsistency can go a bit deeper than that. The new Tylo is absolutely repulsive. Still, let's tone down the papo criticisms until everyone is ready to take a good hard look at some of the other beloved companies this blog reviews. Maybe some of us just think Papo is highly overrated? Sculpted skin detail is not the end all and be all of a dinosaur toy. And that Tylosaurus just proves how bad they can get. It's bad, but still recognizable as a Tylo. You know, I've seen many Chinasauruses that were incredible figures, but... TOTALLY MISIDENTIFIED. Don't laugh, misidentification is a lot more common than you may think. That tylo is not the best tylo, but at least, it's WELL IDENTIFIED.
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Oct 30, 2011 16:49:24 GMT
It's bad, but still recognizable as a Tylo. Well, the head is, but that's about it. The Papo Tylosaurus doesn't actually have a back-frill, though (one thing we can be thankful for).
|
|
|
Post by yankeetrex on Oct 30, 2011 17:54:52 GMT
This is all i'm trying to say....i don't know if it was physically possible for them, I don't know much about prehistoric animal abilities.... somebody fill me in?
|
|
|
Post by bowheadwhale on Oct 30, 2011 18:45:23 GMT
You mean putting their head upright? I don't know either.
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Oct 30, 2011 19:00:45 GMT
No way*. You wouldn't have seen a Tylosaurus hauling itself onto a beach, either. *This rather blunt response may have been the result of me being in a grumpy old mood. Sorry - I'm not fit to pontificate on these matters (to say the least)! But yeah, to me it doesn't look very likely. Now, what we really need is someone who knows a thing or two about marine reptiles to wade in. Doesn't particularly matter if sauropterygians are their specialty...cough...
|
|
|
Post by bowheadwhale on Nov 1, 2011 19:14:22 GMT
No way*. You wouldn't have seen a Tylosaurus hauling itself onto a beach, either. *This rather blunt response may have been the result of me being in a grumpy old mood. Sorry - I'm not fit to pontificate on these matters (to say the least)! But yeah, to me it doesn't look very likely. Now, what we really need is someone who knows a thing or two about marine reptiles to wade in. Doesn't particularly matter if sauropterygians are their specialty...cough... They likely couldn't put themselves on beaches indeed, with a marine body like that... but I still wonder about the head. Predators like crocodiles have a rather moveable neck and they CAN upright their heads when they need to. So, why not a crocodile-like animal like a tylosaurus? A moveable neck would have helped a predator like this one catching swift preys like fishies...
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Nov 1, 2011 21:12:54 GMT
No way*. You wouldn't have seen a Tylosaurus hauling itself onto a beach, either. *This rather blunt response may have been the result of me being in a grumpy old mood. Sorry - I'm not fit to pontificate on these matters (to say the least)! But yeah, to me it doesn't look very likely. Now, what we really need is someone who knows a thing or two about marine reptiles to wade in. Doesn't particularly matter if sauropterygians are their specialty...cough... They likely couldn't put themselves on beaches indeed, with a marine body like that... but I still wonder about the head. Predators like crocodiles have a rather moveable neck and they CAN upright their heads when they need to. So, why not a crocodile-like animal like a tylosaurus? A moveable neck would have helped a predator like this one catching swift preys like fishies... Tylosaurus wasn't croc-like, it was a big monitor lizard. And it probably didn't spend a lot of time'swiftly' chasing fish. At 10-15metres long, they would have been going after (somewhat) less maneuverable prey like other reptiles and much larger fish (the one we have on display here had a small mosasaur in its stomach). And no, it's neck vertebrae would not allow it to raise its head in an S, anymore than an elasmosaur could.
|
|