|
|
Post by tomhet on May 20, 2008 16:44:29 GMT
If they do a Megalodon, it'll be pretty disappointing, much like the Deinosuchus, which looks like a regular croc  I hope they make: -Hemicyclaspis -Mosasaurus -Sea Scorpion -Stethacanthus -Leedsichthys -Nothosaurus -Metriorhynchus |
|
|
|
Post by sbell on May 20, 2008 17:20:23 GMT
If they do a Megalodon, it'll be pretty disappointing, much like the Deinosuchus, which looks like a regular croc I hope they make: -Hemicyclaspis -Mosasaurus -Sea Scorpion -Stethacanthus -Leedsichthys -Nothosaurus -Metriorhynchus I have to say, I would even be happy with a toob of marine reptiles/prehistoric animals (they take less room!) although the more they make, the better. I think Xiphactinus would be a good choice--a nice, aggressive, scary looking beast. And interestingly, I made the same comment about Megalodon--they already make two large White Sharks (Monterey Bay set and Wild Safari Sealife set) that, in my opinion, are pretty much transferable as Megalodon (and yes, I know that there are physical differences in the real animals). I think it would be great if they made both CbSM mosasaurs--the Halisaurus (little one) and the big one (probably Tylosaurus). The one reptile that both of us missed, and I curse myself for it, would be Sarcosuchus--done well, it would be pretty cool. |
|
|
|
Post by crazycrowman on May 20, 2008 18:39:02 GMT
"If they do a Megalodon, it'll be pretty disappointing, much like the Deinosuchus, which looks like a regular croc "
"And interestingly, I made the same comment about Megalodon--they already make two large White Sharks (Monterey Bay set and Wild Safari Sealife set) that, in my opinion, are pretty much transferable as Megalodon (and yes, I know that there are physical differences in the real animals)."
I disagree! I don't think the lovely big headed croc looks dissapointing at all, and if you really spend some time looking at the different croc species, (safari makes a nile and an american ally, and now also makes larger versions of both) it IS distinct. It would not pass as a gator or a nile, not even a saltie if you know crocodilans. It was just another kind of crcodile, and thats what it looks like. NOW, as sbell had said, if they'd up the ante and do a Sarcosuchus, thats an awesome divergent croc-y sort of beast with some majorly distinct characteristics that even the un-croc savvy would be able to distinguish.
(croc people, IME, like the detail and work done on the Deinosuchus, without making it into a "monster" - I know a fair number who include them in thier crocdilian figure collections)
Granted, that sort of thing is just what I could see causing the folks at safari to skip species, in the "it looks too much like a" thing.
Alot of safaris animals can be modern or prehistoric. (I am thinking reptiles, specifically turtles) and some of the "modern" mammals look and are perfectly suited to stand by their extinct counterparts.
I defenetly like the sound of Leedsichthys and a Nothosaurus...I would also be very interested in a Tiktaalik figure.
|
|
|
|
Post by sbell on May 20, 2008 19:49:28 GMT
"If they do a Megalodon, it'll be pretty disappointing, much like the Deinosuchus, which looks like a regular croc " "And interestingly, I made the same comment about Megalodon--they already make two large White Sharks (Monterey Bay set and Wild Safari Sealife set) that, in my opinion, are pretty much transferable as Megalodon (and yes, I know that there are physical differences in the real animals)." I disagree! I don't think the lovely big headed croc looks dissapointing at all, and if you really spend some time looking at the different croc species, (safari makes a nile and an american ally, and now also makes larger versions of both) it IS distinct. It would not pass as a gator or a nile, not even a saltie if you know crocodilans. It was just another kind of crcodile, and thats what it looks like. NOW, as sbell had said, if they'd up the ante and do a Sarcosuchus, thats an awesome divergent croc-y sort of beast with some majorly distinct characteristics that even the un-croc savvy would be able to distinguish. (croc people, IME, like the detail and work done on the Deinosuchus, without making it into a "monster" - I know a fair number who include them in thier crocdilian figure collections) Granted, that sort of thing is just what I could see causing the folks at safari to skip species, in the "it looks too much like a" thing. In my defense, I never said anything about the Deinosuchus; and my disagreement with the Megalodon was that I don't see them differentiating enough from a GW shark. I personally like the Carnegie Deinosuchus, better than the Schleich one (which to me seems a bit...rounded?). |
|
|
|
Post by [][][]cordylus[][][] on May 20, 2008 21:41:46 GMT
I think they could do a cool(in scale) megalodon. The would have to "invent" a few differences though, such as putting spines on the fins, giving it a white eye with a black pupil(instead of an all black eye), etc.
|
|
tiermann
Full Member
Playmosaurus
Posts: 142
|
Post by tiermann on May 20, 2008 23:31:00 GMT
The would have to "invent" a few differences though, or maybe add some feathers... |
|
|
|
Post by [][][]cordylus[][][] on May 20, 2008 23:42:16 GMT
The would have to "invent" a few differences though, or maybe add some feathers... Why not? ;D |
|
|
|
Post by tomhet on May 21, 2008 0:08:11 GMT
Granted, that sort of thing is just what I could see causing the folks at safari to skip species, in the "it looks too much like a" thing. Alot of safaris animals can be modern or prehistoric. (I am thinking reptiles, specifically turtles) and some of the "modern" mammals look and are perfectly suited to stand by their extinct counterparts. That's my argument. I'd prefer a rare genus *cough* agnathan *cough* Hemicyclaspis *cough* or a well-done mosasaur or pliosaur. Besides, they'd probably base the Megalodon on a modern shark, nobody knows exactly what it looked like, right? The same goes to the Deinosuchus, isn't it true that they've only found the head? sbell, I see your point, but I think I would prefer big toys  |
|
|
|
Post by [][][]cordylus[][][] on May 21, 2008 0:26:15 GMT
Plesiosaur toys(or any marine toys) are a better because you can play with them more in pools and they are a lot more fun.
|
|
|
|
Post by EmperorDinobot on May 21, 2008 2:56:28 GMT
Safari needs to give us new herbivorous dinosaurs. I don't care what they are as long as they are accurate. I wouldn't mind a bunch of flying reptiles, either. And when they do this, they need to sell them at all major retailers so I won't have to go across the state to find them, or touch an online store.
Of course, you do realize this is never going to happen..
|
|
|
|
Post by sbell on May 21, 2008 5:16:47 GMT
Safari needs to give us new herbivorous dinosaurs. I don't care what they are as long as they are accurate. I wouldn't mind a bunch of flying reptiles, either. And when they do this, they need to sell them at all major retailers so I won't have to go across the state to find them, or touch an online store. Of course, you do realize this is never going to happen.. What defines a major retailer these days? Other than "Merchandising R Us", what other major toy stores exist that would sell replicas like this? Or even educational stores? They are usually sold in smaller stores with a few outlets, or museum shops, these days; Safari went TRU for a while, and it was a disaster--it was latest 90s, and they thought it would increase their market share, but instead Shleich got very aggressive and bumped them from all but the largest independents. Only recently, with the major changes that have been wrought at Safari Ltd have the toy stores started bringing them back in, in particular Carnegie dinos (it helps that Schleich is proving a very poor competitor, and Papo does not yet have a large enough line to completely push out other companies). |
|
|
|
Post by sbell on May 21, 2008 5:23:32 GMT
Granted, that sort of thing is just what I could see causing the folks at safari to skip species, in the "it looks too much like a" thing. Alot of safaris animals can be modern or prehistoric. (I am thinking reptiles, specifically turtles) and some of the "modern" mammals look and are perfectly suited to stand by their extinct counterparts. That's my argument. I'd prefer a rare genus *cough* agnathan *cough* Hemicyclaspis *cough* or a well-done mosasaur or pliosaur. Besides, they'd probably base the Megalodon on a modern shark, nobody knows exactly what it looked like, right? The same goes to the Deinosuchus, isn't it true that they've only found the head? sbell, I see your point, but I think I would prefer big toys I am not picky about sizes--Play Visions, Carnegie, Dinotales, bring it all on. If the figure is unique. And you are correct, Deinosuchus, like many crocs, is known mainly from skull material, but for the most part, while croc bodies have variations, there is a tendency towards a certain conservatism unless niches open up (geosaurs, mekosuchines, Pristichampsus) so it is possible to present a fairly realistic model--as long as morphology and physical limitations are taken into account (like the original estimates of the size of Megalodon or Ornithocheirus & Quetzalcoatlus)--the body proportions are based more on a curve than a straight linear relationship. This is why the Schleich figure, to me, looks 'beefy'--I think they took a croc skull, a Deinosuchus skull, and straight multiplied everything by the factor present in the skull, which in turn causes the width to seem disproportionately large. |
|
|
|
Post by sbell on May 21, 2008 5:28:40 GMT
Plesiosaur toys(or any marine toys) are a better because you can play with them more in pools and they are a lot more fun. I agree--water animals are great because of 'bathtub potential'. I think that's the hardest thing about pterosaur models--perched or roosting figures (the TS Ornithocheirus, the first Bullyland Pteranodon sternbergei, the Safari 'pterosaur' Anhanguera) are better display animals but difficult to play with,while soaring ones are better for play but are pains to display (I have mine hanging from wire in a shelf). |
|
|
|
Post by giganotoigauana on May 21, 2008 15:11:13 GMT
* imagine dinotoyforum in the bathtub with plesiosaurs and pliosaurs....rub a dub dub *  ;D |
|
|
|
Post by sbell on May 21, 2008 15:29:46 GMT
* imagine dinotoyforum in the bathtub with plesiosaurs and pliosaurs....rub a dub dub * ;D Gee, thanks for that mental picture. |
|
|
|
Post by Dinotoyforum on May 21, 2008 16:32:21 GMT
* imagine dinotoyforum in the bathtub with plesiosaurs and pliosaurs....rub a dub dub * ;D How did you know I did that!? I'll post some pictures, no need for a mental picture then... ;D |
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on May 21, 2008 21:36:35 GMT
Will that be for members only, or for the whole world to see?
|
|
|
|
Post by [][][]cordylus[][][] on May 21, 2008 22:24:36 GMT
Hopefully neither....
|
|
|
|
Post by sbell on May 21, 2008 22:33:13 GMT
Will that be for members only, or for the whole world to see? Why should we be the only ones to deal with that? |
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on May 21, 2008 22:36:50 GMT
I'm sure he has something special to show us.
|
|
![[][][]cordylus[][][] Avatar](http://files.sharenator.com/Troll_Face_U_MAD_RE_wrestling_1-s407x405-126802.jpg)
;D
