|
|
Post by gfxtwin on Sept 23, 2010 14:07:23 GMT
Your best bet is Safari. They tend too look MUCH better in the stock photos, though. The main reason is because they use some kind of thick paint that ruins a lot of the detail of their figs, especially in regards to carnivore's teeth - they tend to be stumpy, peggy and pure white. It's really awkward from an artistic point of view. I know that a lot of folks would like to see total 100% unflinching scientific accuracy here, but if I had to choose between a figure that is incredibly accurate (Carnegie Spinosaurus) but looks like a 13 year old painted it, and a figure that sacrifices SOME scientific accuracy to look really friggin impressive from an artistic perspective (Papo Allosaurus), I'm going with the latter. I mean, How long does so-called scientific accuracy last, anyway? And isn't a lot of it still debatable to some extent?
And to those who are going to debate me on the issue of Safari's crappy paint:
1. No, I don't want to re-paint or customize my figure. Why? Because A) I don't have time, and B) why should I sacrifice my time for because of a company's short-sightedness?
2. In some aspects, like the teeth on many of the Carnegie predators, I don't see how it's POSSIBLE to make them look good. I have yet to see someone show me a quick fix that actually makes them look sharp, menacing, tooth-like, and similar to the prototype models/stock photos.
EDIT: After looking at some of the new models, like Cryolophosaurus, it appears that Carnegie has improved considerably in the teeth department. Better late than never I suppose.
|
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Sept 23, 2010 14:29:48 GMT
The Cryolophosaurus isn't WS - it's Carnegie. Safari don't have anything to do with the Carnegie line except distributing it. Be careful when referring to the 'WS Spinosaurus' too, as there is both a Wild Safari and Carnegie Spinosaurus - the latter is pretty accurate, and the former isn't so much.
|
|
|
|
Post by gfxtwin on Sept 23, 2010 16:40:10 GMT
I was referfing to carnegie this whole time, I think. I always get confused between "Carnegie by Safari" and "Wild Safafi by Safari".
|
|
|
|
Post by [][][]cordylus[][][] on Sept 24, 2010 2:10:45 GMT
Your best bet is Safari. They tend too look MUCH better in the stock photos, though. The main reason is because they use some kind of thick paint that ruins a lot of the detail of their figs, especially in regards to carnivore's teeth - they tend to be stumpy, peggy and pure white. It's really awkward from an artistic point of view. I know that a lot of folks would like to see total 100% unflinching scientific accuracy here, but if I had to choose between a figure that is incredibly accurate (Carnegie Spinosaurus) but looks like a 13 year old painted it, and a figure that sacrifices SOME scientific accuracy to look really friggin impressive from an artistic perspective (Papo Allosaurus), I'm going with the latter. I mean, How long does so-called scientific accuracy last, anyway? And isn't a lot of it still debatable to some extent? And to those who are going to debate me on the issue of Safari's crappy paint: 1. No, I don't want to re-paint or customize my figure. Why? Because A) I don't have time, and B) why should I sacrifice my time for because of a company's short-sightedness? 2. In some aspects, like the teeth on many of the Carnegie predators, I don't see how it's POSSIBLE to make them look good. I have yet to see someone show me a quick fix that actually makes them look sharp, menacing, tooth-like, and similar to the prototype models/stock photos. EDIT: After looking at some of the new models, like Cryolophosaurus, it appears that Carnegie has improved considerably in the teeth department. Better late than never I suppose.  The teeth problem was mostly a problem in 2009, but in the 20190 carnivore Cryolophosaurus the problem was fixed and the cryo has a beautiful set of choppers. We can know a lot about dinosaurs from their skeletons, even moreso from complete ones. The only things we really can't figure out are soft tissue formations on their bodies like keratin spikes or lumps of skin used for display; but we can still know their proportions and general shapes (In the case of the spinosaur, we have a very good idea of what the head looks like; enough so that we know that the JP3 version of spinosaurus is very wrong). You should spend some time painting; it's very relaxing and it's pretty fun to do too (and if you get good at it people will pay you to do it. How crazy is that? ). The reason that the stock photos always look perfect is because they have an artist to paint them. and I think they are made out of a resin that can hold a lot of detail like those tiny little pointed teeth. |
|
|
|
Post by gfxtwin on Sept 24, 2010 6:53:01 GMT
Your best bet is Safari. They tend too look MUCH better in the stock photos, though. The main reason is because they use some kind of thick paint that ruins a lot of the detail of their figs, especially in regards to carnivore's teeth - they tend to be stumpy, peggy and pure white. It's really awkward from an artistic point of view. I know that a lot of folks would like to see total 100% unflinching scientific accuracy here, but if I had to choose between a figure that is incredibly accurate (Carnegie Spinosaurus) but looks like a 13 year old painted it, and a figure that sacrifices SOME scientific accuracy to look really friggin impressive from an artistic perspective (Papo Allosaurus), I'm going with the latter. I mean, How long does so-called scientific accuracy last, anyway? And isn't a lot of it still debatable to some extent? And to those who are going to debate me on the issue of Safari's crappy paint: 1. No, I don't want to re-paint or customize my figure. Why? Because A) I don't have time, and B) why should I sacrifice my time for because of a company's short-sightedness? 2. In some aspects, like the teeth on many of the Carnegie predators, I don't see how it's POSSIBLE to make them look good. I have yet to see someone show me a quick fix that actually makes them look sharp, menacing, tooth-like, and similar to the prototype models/stock photos. EDIT: After looking at some of the new models, like Cryolophosaurus, it appears that Carnegie has improved considerably in the teeth department. Better late than never I suppose. The teeth problem was mostly a problem in 2009, but in the 20190 carnivore Cryolophosaurus the problem was fixed and the cryo has a beautiful set of choppers. We can know a lot about dinosaurs from their skeletons, even moreso from complete ones. The only things we really can't figure out are soft tissue formations on their bodies like keratin spikes or lumps of skin used for display; but we can still know their proportions and general shapes (In the case of the spinosaur, we have a very good idea of what the head looks like; enough so that we know that the JP3 version of spinosaurus is very wrong). You should spend some time painting; it's very relaxing and it's pretty fun to do too (and if you get good at it people will pay you to do it. How crazy is that? ). The reason that the stock photos always look perfect is because they have an artist to paint them. and I think they are made out of a resin that can hold a lot of detail like those tiny little pointed teeth. Yeah, I know that the Jurassic Park dinos have all kinds of things wrong with them. Never really claimed otherwise. I'm just saying that I'd rather see a toy that is inspired from and looks to be on the level of a great peleo artist's work (Papo Allosaurus) than a bland, but scientifically accurate toy. The 2009 Carnegies were exceptionally accurate, but they lacked detail and style. I don't think Papo's detail is superfluous, either - the little things they pay attention to, like the fact that a carnivore's teeth are sharp, the texture of the skin, muscle tone, an eye that resembles a bird's, etc are all very important. That said, the Carnegies are starting to catch up to Papo in terms of detail. They kind of have to. I paint quite a bit, but I'd personally rather draw and paint a dinosaur from scratch than re-paint a figure. |
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Sept 24, 2010 17:50:54 GMT
Papo pay attention to minute details, but tend to mess them up - like the teeth inside the Parasaurolophus' beak, to name but the one weirdest example. As for skin texture...well, it's all well and good on the ones that should be scaley, but...
|
|
|
|
Post by gfxtwin on Sept 24, 2010 19:13:40 GMT
Papo pay attention to minute details, but tend to mess them up - like the teeth inside the Parasaurolophus' beak, to name but the one weirdest example. As for skin texture...well, it's all well and good on the ones that should be scaley, but... They put teeth in the Para's Beak? Jeez, I heard about the pteranodon, but not that. Yeah, like I said, they aren't the most scientifically accurate bunch, but I think they have more talent than anyone else when it comes to the sheer sculpting, craftsmanship and engineering aspects of making figures. Many of their dinosaurs look lifelike, are in fluid poses, and the best ones (Allosaurus, T-rex, Pachyrhinosaurus) are thoughtfully and carefully painted and may have features like moveable jaws. Carnegie get a lot of love for looking scientifically accurate but it makes me want to avoid their figures when a dinosaur's tail has to touch the ground in order for it to stand, or when a therapod has the teeth of a sauropod (which are always painted BLINDING white for some weird reason). Also, they ought to use another plastic...one that isn't so...shiny. Just my 2 cents. |
|
|
|
Post by tanystropheus on Sept 24, 2010 20:42:57 GMT
I have the entire Papo collection minus the “Ludodactylus” and the Mammoths. I will be picking up the Ludodactylus and the Steppe Mammoth at a later date. I have v2 of the Velociraptor, despite the fact that I clearly ordered v1. from amazon.com (I actually like the newer model more than the original, but I wanted the original due to its rarity).
A few observations:
-The Para does have teeth (it's hardly noticeable, but silly). The teeth is painted on, and you probably will not see it unless you look for it.
-The models with the articulated jaws include: T-rex, Spinosaurus, Velociraptor and Allosaurus. (The Nessie, being a Papo carnivore, should have had an articulated jaw, but I would imagine that the Papo team probably ran into some design issues due to the plesiosaurus' interlocking teeth structure)
-The Pachycephalosaurus is really tiny and exhibits the same paint pattern as the Kenner rendition
also,
The Scheich Brachiosaurus/Giraffatitan is an exceptional product. It towers over my Papo collection, and looks more or less on par with the Papos. I am convinced that I need to pick up the Schleich Apatosaurus at some point in time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Sept 24, 2010 20:53:21 GMT
The Schleich "Brachiosaurus" is pretty good, but...aarrggh, the feet! It's always the feet. Someone should tell dino toy manufacturers like Schleich that sauropods didn't have elephant feet. Or skin.
|
|
|
|
Post by [][][]cordylus[][][] on Sept 24, 2010 21:31:44 GMT
The teeth problem was mostly a problem in 2009, but in the 20190 carnivore Cryolophosaurus the problem was fixed and the cryo has a beautiful set of choppers. We can know a lot about dinosaurs from their skeletons, even moreso from complete ones. The only things we really can't figure out are soft tissue formations on their bodies like keratin spikes or lumps of skin used for display; but we can still know their proportions and general shapes (In the case of the spinosaur, we have a very good idea of what the head looks like; enough so that we know that the JP3 version of spinosaurus is very wrong). You should spend some time painting; it's very relaxing and it's pretty fun to do too (and if you get good at it people will pay you to do it. How crazy is that? ). The reason that the stock photos always look perfect is because they have an artist to paint them. and I think they are made out of a resin that can hold a lot of detail like those tiny little pointed teeth. Yeah, I know that the Jurassic Park dinos have all kinds of things wrong with them. Never really claimed otherwise. I'm just saying that I'd rather see a toy that is inspired from and looks to be on the level of a great peleo artist's work (Papo Allosaurus) than a bland, but scientifically accurate toy. The 2009 Carnegies were exceptionally accurate, but they lacked detail and style. I don't think Papo's detail is superfluous, either - the little things they pay attention to, like the fact that a carnivore's teeth are sharp, the texture of the skin, muscle tone, an eye that resembles a bird's, etc are all very important. That said, the Carnegies are starting to catch up to Papo in terms of detail. They kind of have to. I paint quite a bit, but I'd personally rather draw and paint a dinosaur from scratch than re-paint a figure. The 2009 carnegie tylosaurus is everything but bland - have you seen one in person? It's detail level surpasses the papo plesiosaur! |
|
|
|
Post by gfxtwin on Sept 24, 2010 22:45:22 GMT
Yeah, I know that the Jurassic Park dinos have all kinds of things wrong with them. Never really claimed otherwise. I'm just saying that I'd rather see a toy that is inspired from and looks to be on the level of a great peleo artist's work (Papo Allosaurus) than a bland, but scientifically accurate toy. The 2009 Carnegies were exceptionally accurate, but they lacked detail and style. I don't think Papo's detail is superfluous, either - the little things they pay attention to, like the fact that a carnivore's teeth are sharp, the texture of the skin, muscle tone, an eye that resembles a bird's, etc are all very important. That said, the Carnegies are starting to catch up to Papo in terms of detail. They kind of have to. I paint quite a bit, but I'd personally rather draw and paint a dinosaur from scratch than re-paint a figure. The 2009 carnegie tylosaurus is everything but bland - have you seen one in person? It's detail level surpasses the papo plesiosaur! It's definitely the best carnegie figure on the market. also, the type of skin that Tylosaurus most likely had agrees with the sculpting style and plastic that Carnegie use on most of their figures. The papo plesiosaur, on the other hand, is really awkward and looks like it was sculpted by an entirely different artist from the norm at papo. I have no idea how they screwed that one up. |
|
|
|
Post by tanystropheus on Sept 26, 2010 8:08:46 GMT
The 2009 carnegie tylosaurus is everything but bland - have you seen one in person? It's detail level surpasses the papo plesiosaur! It's definitely the best carnegie figure on the market. also, the type of skin that Tylosaurus most likely had agrees with the sculpting style and plastic that Carnegie use on most of their figures. The papo plesiosaur, on the other hand, is really awkward and looks like it was sculpted by an entirely different artist from the norm at papo. I have no idea how they screwed that one up. Yes, it does look like it was sculpted by a different artist, but it is not a total fail by any means. From a distance, the Papo Plesiosaurus looks like the love child of a boa constrictor and Nessie....and there is a bit of mystique to its smug stoic expression...it's hard to describe, but its a good figure...I like it... but the Tylosaurus is light years beyond, when compared to the Papo Nessie... |
|
|
|
Post by [][][]cordylus[][][] on Sept 26, 2010 14:12:08 GMT
The papo plesiosaur is really a missed opportunity; there are so many awesome plesiosaur reconstructions to base it off of and they choose the very poor cryptocleidus reconstruction that the chap mei plesiosaur was also based off of....
|
|
|
|
Post by foxilized on Sept 26, 2010 14:16:34 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by [][][]cordylus[][][] on Sept 26, 2010 14:19:10 GMT
The reason that brachios are commonly depicted without scales all over is because... It's cheaper to produce them that way. Sculpting all those scales takes time, and that means sculptors will have to be paid more, and you can expect the price of the $33 brachio to go up even more!
|
|
|
|
Post by Himmapaan on Sept 26, 2010 15:15:17 GMT
I still think it's reasonable that an animal of that size would exhibit wrinkling skin -- even skin that was covered in scales. I think most toys are really just aiming for that general impression, rather than consciously making it elephantine. Scales are also less likely to be 'visible' at the scale most sauropod toys and models are recreated.
|
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Sept 26, 2010 16:17:48 GMT
Wrinkling in places yes, but not elephantine. If they believe the scales wouldn't be visible at that scale then fine, but just leave the skin smooth-ish please. Admittedly companies are getting better with this (the newer Carnegie sauropods don't exhibit excessive wrinkliness, for example).
|
|
|
|
Post by Himmapaan on Sept 26, 2010 18:04:40 GMT
Oh, I agree. I wasn't protesting against your point so much as speculating that many depictions we see aren't necessarily using elephants as their model (ah, the interwebs, I don't believe I shall ever get the hang of it for as long as I live... ;D).  I was sort of responding to Fox's post too, besides making a general comment. ;D The Safari Apatosaurus does look more strikingly elephantine, it's true, but I think the Schleich is much less so. This is a fair example of good sauropod skin, in my very humblest opinion:  That kind of wrinkling is not, I think, elephantine, but is more akin to reptilian skin. Most of it is fairly smooth, with larger scales, bumps, etc given more definition. But as it's a Krentz model, I daresay we are a little more spoilt about its accuracy there. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by foxilized on Sept 27, 2010 2:42:01 GMT
Hey but the Schleich brachio does have its good scales. And now that I see it, that skin is not that elephant-like at all... www.spiel-ideen.ch/shop-spiel-ideen/Media/Shop/16458-01-schleich_pic.jpgAbout the Apato, hm I cannot find a good big photo of it to really tell, but does it have sculpted scales too, like the brachio? To me, it always looked like a totally mammalian skin (maybe not so elephant as hyppo?) Yeah I looked in the Schleich catalogue and the Apato has a different skin than the Brachio. Apato's is totally mammalian. It does look great IMO, the whole figure is a totally innacurate and retro design, so the mammal skin fits there. It's really one of the very best Schleich figures imo, in terms of artistic detail and quality. I really really want one, but in Spain they are very expensive and I won't pay shipping cost for that behemoth to be bought online. Finally, what design would you say that Apato depicted? Maybe a late 80's or early 90's depiction? I think it looks too modern to represent 70's or 80's, yet it looks like it could be inspired by the JP look. I have some books from the mid 90's wich start depicting sauropods with spines and humps, so that Shcleich Apato must be as it was thought to be on late 80's-early 90's. |
|
|
|
Post by paleofreak on Sept 27, 2010 9:48:52 GMT
Hey but the Schleich brachio does have its good scales. Very soft scales, as some of them have wrinkles inside :-) |
|
![[][][]cordylus[][][] Avatar](http://files.sharenator.com/Troll_Face_U_MAD_RE_wrestling_1-s407x405-126802.jpg)
I was sort of responding to Fox's post too, besides making a general comment. ;D The Safari Apatosaurus does look more strikingly elephantine, it's true, but I think the Schleich is much less so. 