|
|
Post by sbell on Jul 22, 2011 16:33:52 GMT
Well, the CollectA is more in 3D than 2D, so it would be different by definition ;D *BA-DUM-DUM*!!!!!!!!!!!!  Good night folks! I'll be here all week! Try the fish. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by anchry6 on Jul 22, 2011 23:29:11 GMT
I think Papo is doing more and more attention to the scientist researchers named the models .. especially this year, but improving substantially (eg the front legs of ceratopsid). In fact, the errors seem to be smaller (and sometimes just the same mistake of Carnegie dell'ankylosaurus narrow hips).  |
|
|
|
Post by tanystropheus on Jul 23, 2011 1:14:22 GMT
Bravo Tanystropheus! i fully agree with you... In my opinion in the forum that the blog is (among other things has good review) but often with the strong bias of Papo and Carnegie. I think every dinosaur toy must be observed as much as possible without prejudice. The most striking example is the Ankylosaurus Ankylosaurus Papo vs. the Carnegie. Almost everyone believes the Carnegie Ankylosaurus is really nice and are very critical of the poor Papo. Ok ... it is true ... Papo is not an Ankylosaurus but a nice example of Euoplocephalus but the only other error that I observe are the narrow hips ... The same error for the Carnegie Ankylosaurus. Then if so harshly criticized Papo is fine but do it with the Safari and Carnegie. What is often avoided.  Thank you! I have a feeling Papo really bumped up the accuracy with their latest models (Styracosaurus, and Euoplocephalus), and perhaps even the Pachyrhinosaurus, to a certain degree (if you can forgive the antlers). However, it is difficult to predict whether or not this is their (current) goal or a mere coincidental occurrence. Quite frankly, I would love to see at least one more "movie monsters" JP style T-rex from Papo in an active pose! (e.g like the recent Safari Ltd. T-rex). I would also like to see a ton of Papo ceratopsians (one of my favorite dinosaur groups). Chasmosaurus, Please! Yeah, we're a little bit less hostile when examining Carnegie and WS specimens...remember Guanlong, guys?  |
|
|
|
Post by simon on Jul 23, 2011 2:57:24 GMT
Bravo Tanystropheus! i fully agree with you... In my opinion in the forum that the blog is (among other things has good review) but often with the strong bias of Papo and Carnegie. I think every dinosaur toy must be observed as much as possible without prejudice. The most striking example is the Ankylosaurus Ankylosaurus Papo vs. the Carnegie. Almost everyone believes the Carnegie Ankylosaurus is really nice and are very critical of the poor Papo. Ok ... it is true ... Papo is not an Ankylosaurus but a nice example of Euoplocephalus but the only other error that I observe are the narrow hips ... The same error for the Carnegie Ankylosaurus. Then if so harshly criticized Papo is fine but do it with the Safari and Carnegie. What is often avoided. Thank you! I have a feeling Papo really bumped up the accuracy with their latest models (Styracosaurus, and Euoplocephalus), and perhaps even the Pachyrhinosaurus, to a certain degree (if you can forgive the antlers). However, it is difficult to predict whether or not this is their (current) goal or a mere coincidental occurrence. Quite frankly, I would love to see at least one more "movie monsters" JP style T-rex from Papo in an active pose! (e.g like the recent Safari Ltd. T-rex). I would also like to see a ton of Papo ceratopsians (one of my favorite dinosaur groups). Chasmosaurus, Please! Yeah, we're a little bit less hostile when examining Carnegie and WS specimens...remember Guanlong, guys? DIABLOCERATOPS and MEDUSACERATOPS, please Mr. Papo!!!  As far as the Carnegie Ankylosaurus I have not criticised it because I never bought it. Having handled it at a couple of Museums, I have no plans to buy it. The Papo, however, teased and then - failed to fully deliver (too small and too narrow). Hell hath no fury like a dinophile falsely enticed! |
|
bfler
Junior Member
Posts: 97
|
Post by bfler on Jul 23, 2011 13:25:44 GMT
They could also produce a new Triceratops. The last one is already some years old.
|
|
|
|
Post by DinoLord on Jul 23, 2011 13:29:24 GMT
And if they do hopefully it won't be that lovely shade of excrement brown....
|
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Jul 23, 2011 16:23:58 GMT
I think Papo is doing more and more attention to the scientist researchers named the models .. especially this year, but improving substantially (eg the front legs of ceratopsid). In fact, the errors seem to be smaller (and sometimes just the same mistake of Carnegie dell'ankylosaurus narrow hips) There is that plesiosaur though. My word, that was horrible. |
|
|
|
Post by itstwentybelow on Jul 23, 2011 17:08:08 GMT
Truthfully I've been pretty disappointed with Papo this year, mainly because of that Styracosaurus. I've handled it a few times in shops and been tempted to buy it. However, I've decided not to because I feel like I already own 3/4 of the sculpt since they just used the EXACT same mold as the Pachyrhinosaurus with very minor differences, painted it a different color and slapped a new head on it. Makes the Styraco feel very cheap. I've never known a dino company to do something so cheap. Plus the Smilodon is very underwhelming; I've handled it as well.
Have yet to see the Ankylo, but I don't expect to be too blown away. Papo had better shape up for next year if they want my money.
|
|
|
|
Post by gfxtwin on Jul 23, 2011 18:46:30 GMT
I like both Papo and Carnegie a lot and I think that they are both the best two dino toy companies in the market for different reasons. I think the rendering, personality and sheer detail of the papo models put the carnegie ones to shame. Conversely, the proportions and up-to-date accuracy of Carnegie put papo's to shame.
Both companies cut corners. In addition to the recycling of the pachy to make the styrac, Papo just refuse to make any effort to quickly look up skeletal references of their subjects before sculpting them. This is really disappointing and lazy because Papo more than anyone have the talent to be the best, but they simply refuse to do a quick google search on what the dinosaur's proportions actually look like. Carnegie, the board favorite here, shouldn't be let off the hook either. The initial sculpts are fantastic, though would be much, much better with actual scales being shown. Papo at least gets this. Also, the final product loses too much detail. The blunting of therapod teeth is inexcusable to me because not only does it ruin the defining feature of the animal, but the supposed reason for doing it - child safety - is dumb because Papo never resorts to losing that much tooth detail and you couldn't cut yourself on one of their therapod's teeth if you tried. I reckon the real reason is the cheap plastic used by carnegie.
Blunt teeth isn't the only problem. Carnegie can really improve their paint application. They sometimes choose nice, colorful designs (the two figures this year look lovely) but the gritty, realistic detail isn't there at all. You have to be in the right lighting to see the intricacies of the skin texture. Papa often highlight these details via a combination of using different washes, brushing the convex areas a darker shade, and using (at least they used to) high-quality plastic that allows for sharp detail. The end result is something that looks more organic...more reptilian. Carnegie dinos look like that could be shaved mammals for all the detail that is put into the skin texture.
Finally, it has to be mentioned...the tripod stance is recdiculous. There's got to be a way around it. Heck, some of the dinosaurs are capable of being modified to stand without the tripod pose, so that tells me for a fact that there is.
Hopefully Papo will realize the importance of scientific accuracy and Carnegie will understand the value of great craftsmanship. Whoever acts first will probably be the undisputed champ of the dino figure market.
|
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Jul 23, 2011 19:05:28 GMT
I do agree about the 'shaved mammal', glossy-look thing. That can be improved upon. Feathered dinosaurs work to the Carnegie line's strengths as they (naturally) don't suffer from this, and the Carnegie Oviraptor therefore trumps Papo's in every respect. However, Papo's scaly dinosaurs, in spite of being anatomically incorrect, do look far more 'organic'.
I also don't understand this issue people have with the Papo Styracosaurus. Yeah, they reused elements of the old model, but so what? The two animals had extremely similar bodies anyway, and the Pachyrhinosaurus body sculpt really wasn't bad (although the tail's too short). I stand by my favourable review of that one, especially as it shows a further improvement in paint schemes (more interesting colours and patterns).
|
|
|
|
Post by postsaurischian on Jul 23, 2011 23:07:10 GMT
I love the Papo Styracosaurus and the Safari Carnegie Miragaia is awesome, also as a piece of sculpting art . |
|
bfler
Junior Member
Posts: 97
|
Post by bfler on Jul 24, 2011 13:11:28 GMT
What I don't understand is that on the one hand people want figures which are anatomical accurate but on the other hand they should be painted with gaudy and unnatural colors, although if you look in real nature it is mostly white, grey, brown or black.
|
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Jul 24, 2011 14:23:21 GMT
What I don't understand is that on the one hand people want figures which are anatomical accurate but on the other hand they should be painted with gaudy and unnatural colors, although if you look in real nature it is mostly white, grey, brown or black. 1) Imagine a shelf full of Papo ceratopsians--all sorts of different species. And all of them roughly similar shades of grey, brown and green. That would look...boring. 2) Nature is not mostly that one colour plus three shades--depending on size and environment. Birds are extremely colourful (and what are they related to?). Many amphibians, reptiles, and of course fish show a wide variety of colour--or at least highlights of colour. Even in mammals, there is a lot more variety (antelopes, cats and primates come to mind). If we are going to decide now that all dinosaurs are coloured pale grey/green like an iguana, then we might as well make them all dumpy tail-draggers with horns on their noses. |
|
|
|
Post by totoro on Jul 24, 2011 14:46:38 GMT
What I don't understand is that on the one hand people want figures which are anatomical accurate but on the other hand they should be painted with gaudy and unnatural colors, although if you look in real nature it is mostly white, grey, brown or black. 1) Imagine a shelf full of Papo ceratopsians--all sorts of different species. And all of them roughly similar shades of grey, brown and green. That would look...boring. 2) Nature is not mostly that one colour plus three shades--depending on size and environment. Birds are extremely colourful (and what are they related to?). Many amphibians, reptiles, and of course fish show a wide variety of colour--or at least highlights of colour. Even in mammals, there is a lot more variety (antelopes, cats and primates come to mind). If we are going to decide now that all dinosaurs are coloured pale grey/green like an iguana, then we might as well make them all dumpy tail-draggers with horns on their noses. I see both sides of this. It's one of the silver linings in the cloud of not knowing more about dinosaurs. While it's true that many birds are colorful, the larger ones tend to be less so, and that is a pattern that carries over into many of the largest animals. It doesn't seem likely to me either that most of the large dinosaurs were brightly colored, or gaudily patterned, at least over most of their bodies. And I don't agree that thinking they weren't brightly colored is the same as thinking that they were cold-blooded sloths. For me, a middle ground of sorts depicting areas of colorful flare and bling adorning less flashy bodies seems most likely and reasonable. But, again, who knows? There are plenty of giraffes and zebras and tigers out there to make us hope that at least some were brilliantly attired!! |
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Jul 24, 2011 17:38:40 GMT
Birds and reptiles use colour a lot more for display than mammals, as mammals often have very limited colour vision (or are colourblind). Dinosaurs almost certainly had excellent colour vision too. With that in mind, I'd like to see more gaudy displays on dinosaur models, especially on ceratopsian frills.
|
|
|
|
Post by Blade-of-the-Moon on Jul 24, 2011 19:32:43 GMT
Don't we actually know what color a couple were now or at least have a good idea ? And they were far from bland if I recall.
|
|
|
|
Post by Himmapaan on Jul 24, 2011 19:49:55 GMT
I also think one can be quite astute in colour choices and application. Browns and earth colours needn't mean 'bland', nor does colourful necessarily mean 'gaudy'.
|
|
|
|
Post by tanystropheus on Jul 24, 2011 19:51:21 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Jul 24, 2011 22:48:14 GMT
I also think one can be quite astute in colour choices and application. Browns and earth colours needn't mean 'bland', nor does colourful necessarily mean 'gaudy'. I agree. Are there any really large animals with gaudy colors. |
|
|
|
Post by Blade-of-the-Moon on Jul 25, 2011 0:09:45 GMT
Define " gaudy " ? Giraffes kinda have odd patterns..whereas a plain old brown would make more sense..there are large sea animals with a lot of interesting patterns as well.
With the larger Dinos there just isn't really anything similar is size and such to compare them to. So until we know for sure...any color will continue to be right. ;D
|
|
