|
|
Post by tomhet on Aug 31, 2008 5:44:21 GMT
sbell, I meant Safari.
|
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Aug 31, 2008 16:18:22 GMT
;D Tomhet this thread is about Dino Riders not Safari.
|
|
|
|
Post by tomhet on Aug 31, 2008 17:54:44 GMT
I know, but somebody started talking about Safari ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Aug 31, 2008 23:33:11 GMT
;D Well there was a picture of the Safari Diplodocus, and I do think a 1/40 Basilosaurus would be cool.  |
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Aug 31, 2008 23:37:59 GMT
;D Oh yes why do the call a mammal King Lizard. Is it science at work again.  |
|
|
|
Post by thagomizer on Sept 1, 2008 4:51:33 GMT
Oh god, no, I hope they don't release more feathered monstrosities. Fair enough, but don't call the feathered ones the monstrosities. The feathered ones are the real wildlife, which I get if you don't prefer. The scaly ones are the fictional monsters you do prefer. You've got it backwards  |
|
|
|
Post by EmperorDinobot on Sept 1, 2008 5:08:01 GMT
God those dinosaurs are ugly. The original dino riders weren't so bad. .I loved their eyes  I have the Deinonychus and the Smithsonian re--issue Kentrosaurus. |
|
|
|
Post by tomhet on Sept 1, 2008 17:29:31 GMT
Oh god, no, I hope they don't release more feathered monstrosities. Fair enough, but don't call the feathered ones the monstrosities. The feathered ones are the real wildlife, which I get if you don't prefer. The scaly ones are the fictional monsters you do prefer. You've got it backwards I guess you feel smug because you think all of your replicas are extremely accurate. Well, they aren't. I bet all the replicas we collect are to some degree inexact. If we were to see a living dinosaur we would see how mistaken our conceptions were. In case it isn't clear enough, the term 'monstrosity' doesn't imply that they are fictional (which is not exactly improbable) but that their butt ugly, whether they are 'real' 'wildlife' or not. |
|
|
|
Post by Tyrannax on Sept 1, 2008 18:42:31 GMT
I don't think feathers look all bad  |
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Sept 2, 2008 0:06:24 GMT
 Tomhet you should be able to enjoy Dinosaurs whichever way you like them. Most of them have inaccuracies. Many have said the Augustinas head was to big. Nobody has ever seen the head just the vertabrae. We can make an assumption like we did with Brontosaurus (Apatosaurus) or we can just wait till we find one. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by EmperorDinobot on Sept 2, 2008 6:35:34 GMT
Feathers look odd in plastic form.
Especially when they are on dinosaurs. So if they wanna make it look accurate...well...they can't.
|
|
|
|
Post by thagomizer on Sept 2, 2008 8:25:47 GMT
Fair enough, but don't call the feathered ones the monstrosities. The feathered ones are the real wildlife, which I get if you don't prefer. The scaly ones are the fictional monsters you do prefer. You've got it backwards I guess you feel smug because you think all of your replicas are extremely accurate. Well, they aren't. I bet all the replicas we collect are to some degree inexact. If we were to see a living dinosaur we would see how mistaken our conceptions were. In case it isn't clear enough, the term 'monstrosity' doesn't imply that they are fictional (which is not exactly improbable) but that their butt ugly, whether they are 'real' 'wildlife' or not. No, I feel annoyed because very few accurate replicas exist, and it would be nice if there were more. And it annoys me when people call the ones that are *more* accurate "monstrosities" and praise the inaccurate ones. Some of them are butt ugly. The Shleich feathered raptor is butt ugly and compared to the new Safari one, which is very pretty and sleek. But that's because Shleich did a bad job. Safari has feathered dinosaurs that look very nice as well, even with some inaccuracies of their own. I don't own any of these but I might but some, like the Beipiaosaurus which doesn't have any anatomical problems to speak of and is one of the best non-Battat replicas out there. Feathers look odd in plastic form. Especially when they are on dinosaurs. So if they wanna make it look accurate...well...they can't. I don't know why. Safari has some awesome bird replicas out there. It's clearly not hard to make feathered dinosaurs that don't look dumb. Unless you're trying to make dinosaurs look different from birds, by using the 'glued on', unnatural look, like Shleich did. Which is very unnatural, and these do look monstrous and ugly. But it can be done. I don't know hwy it would be harder to do feathered dinosaurs than feathered birds, especially species with only protofeathers or pterofuzz, which wouldn't look any different from fur in plastic, and there are plenty of furry mammal replicas out there. Just re-texture the surface, like the DinoRiders Struthiomimus or the Safari Therizinosaurus--you don't need plumes sticking out every which way, and it looks unnatural when it's done like that. |
|
|
|
Post by Dinotoyforum on Sept 2, 2008 10:24:17 GMT
Yeah, the point is not that replicas should be indistinguishable from the living creature, were we to go back in time a Tardis. Rather, toys should be as accurate as possible given our current understanding. Of course there will be a balance between aesthetics, production limitations, accuracy and an amount of artistic license - preference will vary from person to person. In some cases, aesthetics may even overrule accuracy, in others limitation may overrule accuracy (tail draggers like the Papo rex) and in still other cases (chinasaurs) it seems neither aesthetics or accuracy are taken into account. Personally, I'm all for pushing aesthetic boundaries (colour, wobbly bits, keratin scales and sheaths) within a solid scientific framework (the fossil evidence). That's why I like the Papo Allosaurus. But I'm derailing the thread again! |
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Sept 2, 2008 13:40:15 GMT
I guess you feel smug because you think all of your replicas are extremely accurate. Well, they aren't. I bet all the replicas we collect are to some degree inexact. If we were to see a living dinosaur we would see how mistaken our conceptions were. In case it isn't clear enough, the term 'monstrosity' doesn't imply that they are fictional (which is not exactly improbable) but that their butt ugly, whether they are 'real' 'wildlife' or not. No, I feel annoyed because very few accurate replicas exist, and it would be nice if there were more. And it annoys me when people call the ones that are *more* accurate "monstrosities" and praise the inaccurate ones. Some of them are butt ugly. The Shleich feathered raptor is butt ugly and compared to the new Safari one, which is very pretty and sleek. But that's because Shleich did a bad job. Safari has feathered dinosaurs that look very nice as well, even with some inaccuracies of their own. I don't own any of these but I might but some, like the Beipiaosaurus which doesn't have any anatomical problems to speak of and is one of the best non-Battat replicas out there. Feathers look odd in plastic form. Especially when they are on dinosaurs. So if they wanna make it look accurate...well...they can't. I don't know why. Safari has some awesome bird replicas out there. It's clearly not hard to make feathered dinosaurs that don't look dumb. Unless you're trying to make dinosaurs look different from birds, by using the 'glued on', unnatural look, like Shleich did. Which is very unnatural, and these do look monstrous and ugly. But it can be done. I don't know hwy it would be harder to do feathered dinosaurs than feathered birds, especially species with only protofeathers or pterofuzz, which wouldn't look any different from fur in plastic, and there are plenty of furry mammal replicas out there. Just re-texture the surface, like the DinoRiders Struthiomimus or the Safari Therizinosaurus--you don't need plumes sticking out every which way, and it looks unnatural when it's done like that. After all that Schleich-bashing (something I am not normally against when it comes to their dinos) I realized something--I believe you are bashing the new BULLYLAND raptor. Mainly because Schleich is so far behind, that they have yet to produce a feathered dino (and I cringe at the prospects, given many of their other attempts at dinos). But Bully did indeed produce a raptor for this year. One which I have no intention of getting any time soon. |
|
|
|
Post by sid on Sept 2, 2008 13:58:52 GMT
Fair enough, but don't call the feathered ones the monstrosities. The feathered ones are the real wildlife, which I get if you don't prefer. The scaly ones are the fictional monsters you do prefer. You've got it backwards I guess you feel smug because you think all of your replicas are extremely accurate. Well, they aren't. I bet all the replicas we collect are to some degree inexact. If we were to see a living dinosaur we would see how mistaken our conceptions were. In case it isn't clear enough, the term 'monstrosity' doesn't imply that they are fictional (which is not exactly improbable) but that their butt ugly, whether they are 'real' 'wildlife' or not. Agree |
|
|
|
Post by tomhet on Sept 2, 2008 16:53:21 GMT
No, I feel annoyed because very few accurate replicas exist, and it would be nice if there were more. And it annoys me when people call the ones that are *more* accurate "monstrosities" and praise the inaccurate ones. I can call them whatever I like and I'm entitled to collect whatever I want, in case you're arrogant enough not to know. |
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Sept 2, 2008 18:25:12 GMT
No, I feel annoyed because very few accurate replicas exist, and it would be nice if there were more. And it annoys me when people call the ones that are *more* accurate "monstrosities" and praise the inaccurate ones. I can call them whatever I like and I'm entitled to collect whatever I want, in case you're arrogant enough not to know. Where's Richard's 'Chill Pill" graphic when we need it ;D Seriously, we need a moratorium on the feathered dino thing--it seems to bring out nothing but hostility. Or it should only be discussed in 'that' thread, insofar as this should not devolve into something other than a discussion of how cool Dino Riders toys were, and why it is a travesty and injustice that DR seems to be one fo the few 80s lines of toys/TV shows that has been completely ignored (I mean, come on, a Voltron remake, but no Dino Riders?). |
|
|
|
Post by sid on Sept 2, 2008 20:57:04 GMT
(I mean, come on, a Voltron remake, but no Dino Riders?). Totally agree...And if i may add,a Dinoriders movie,if done well,would kick some serious ass |
|
|
|
Post by bolesey on Sept 3, 2008 1:01:51 GMT
I never saw the cartoon as a kid, but I did watch a bit of the first episode that someone posted on google video. I dunno, it's pretty stupid.
It does seem like it has the elements for a fun popcorn movie, but it's the sort of thing that could easily become a laughable mess. But if a solid movie could be made, it would probably be very commercial. If nothing else, they'd sell a lot of toys. I can't imagine that the idea of a movie hasn't occurred to them.
|
|
|
|
Post by thagomizer on Sept 3, 2008 1:59:17 GMT
No, I feel annoyed because very few accurate replicas exist, and it would be nice if there were more. And it annoys me when people call the ones that are *more* accurate "monstrosities" and praise the inaccurate ones. Some of them are butt ugly. The Shleich feathered raptor is butt ugly and compared to the new Safari one, which is very pretty and sleek. But that's because Shleich did a bad job. Safari has feathered dinosaurs that look very nice as well, even with some inaccuracies of their own. I don't own any of these but I might but some, like the Beipiaosaurus which doesn't have any anatomical problems to speak of and is one of the best non-Battat replicas out there. I don't know why. Safari has some awesome bird replicas out there. It's clearly not hard to make feathered dinosaurs that don't look dumb. Unless you're trying to make dinosaurs look different from birds, by using the 'glued on', unnatural look, like Shleich did. Which is very unnatural, and these do look monstrous and ugly. But it can be done. I don't know hwy it would be harder to do feathered dinosaurs than feathered birds, especially species with only protofeathers or pterofuzz, which wouldn't look any different from fur in plastic, and there are plenty of furry mammal replicas out there. Just re-texture the surface, like the DinoRiders Struthiomimus or the Safari Therizinosaurus--you don't need plumes sticking out every which way, and it looks unnatural when it's done like that. After all that Schleich-bashing (something I am not normally against when it comes to their dinos) I realized something--I believe you are bashing the new BULLYLAND raptor. Mainly because Schleich is so far behind, that they have yet to produce a feathered dino (and I cringe at the prospects, given many of their other attempts at dinos). But Bully did indeed produce a raptor for this year. One which I have no intention of getting any time soon. Yup, that's the one I meant, sorry! Even without the feathers, that thing would be butt-ugly, but the way the feathers were done doesn't help one bit. Fugly-as. |
|
I have the Deinonychus and the Smithsonian re--issue Kentrosaurus.
Tomhet you should be able to enjoy Dinosaurs whichever way you like them. Most of them have inaccuracies. Many have said the Augustinas head was to big. Nobody has ever seen the head just the vertabrae. We can make an assumption like we did with Brontosaurus (Apatosaurus) or we can just wait till we find one. ;D
