Which dinos would you like to see Papo take on?

[Horridus]

.....Hence the copying of popular depictions of dinosaurs, like the Jurassic Park ones. Makes sense. I always assumed it was purely for commercial reasons, but then I am cynical like that (no doubt that is a beneficial side effect though).

[Himmapaan]

Don't forget Papo will be the one with the overall decisions. I would imagine there were probably commercial considerations on their part.

The sculptor may not be palaeontologically informed, but I would say that as a sculptor he does have a basic grasp of general comparative anatomy. One couldn't really achieve these results simply from copying.

What Papo ought to do is to get palaeontologists to work with the artist. Then they will be on to great things...

[Horridus]

Yeah, if they brought a palaeontologist in to collaborate with their artist - who is a very, very good artist and sculptor - they'd REALLY have a great line of figures. They'd have the potential to put resin statues to shame.

[[][][]cordylus[][][]]

Sept 30, 2010 14:40:44 GMT Himmapaan said:

What Papo ought to do is to get palaeontologists to work with the artist. Then they will be on to great things...

Quoted for the truth!

[gfxtwin]

I'd like to see that happen as well. Honestly, though, even if Papo continue to make a few inaccuracies with each figure, I won't care as long as the sculpting continues to remain as beautiful as it is. I get why scientific accuracy is important and all, but you know what? 50 years ago it was considered scientifically accurate for dinosaurs to drag their tails. A couple of decades ago there was still dispute over whether dinosaurs had feathers and which ones. Hell, Iguanodon's thumb was originally thought to be a horn.

My point is, why totally focus on scientific accuracy (and some toy companies do this more than others) when 20 years from now, a good number of what we currently know will be considered wrong again? Jurassic Park is is remembered and beloved because of the artistry involved in making those goofy-looking dinosaurs look realistic and memorable. If they were totally accurate, but they were not as well engineered as they were, I doubt that movie would have won an oscar.

In an ideal world, accuracy and artistry are at the same tremendous level, but if I had to choose one in regards to figures - artistry all the way. Don't get me wrong, companies like Carnegie have a great sculptor as well, but I've noticed that a lot of folks here are quick to complain about minute inaccuracies in some Papo figures (like big feet, antler-like horns, etc) but sometimes overlook/defend the inaccuracies (thin ankles, etc) awkward poses and sloppy painting of the Carnegie therapods.

[Himmapaan]

Sept 30, 2010 22:32:02 GMT gfxtwin said:

...I've noticed that a lot of folks here are quick to complain about minute inaccuracies in some Papo figures (like big feet, antler-like horns, etc) but sometimes overlook/defend the inaccuracies (thin ankles, etc) awkward poses and sloppy painting of the Carnegie therapods.

I notice this too. The main argument for such a stance would be that a greater attempt at accuracy has been made upon the whole by Carnegie, so that overlooking their shortcomings is perhaps more palatable. But I would suggest too that an uncomfortable posture with a lesser feel of vitality -- and consequently less impression of realism -- may not necessarily be more 'accurate' than, say, a misplaced horn. I also find puzzling the faint implication from some quarters that expressing a preference for artistry equals an ignorance of, or indifference towards, the science. It is possible for one to highly appreciate both, and indeed to appreciate whichever weight a certain company chooses to invest in their figures. I think we sometimes forget that the very act of creating miniature representations of something in order to purchase, treasure and admire them, is in its very nature an art. It is why so many of us collect all kinds of figures that no longer correspond to the current, correct view of the animals they depict, or that are purposefully stylised in all manner of ways. It is as I recently said on the Recent Acquisitions thread: 'Ultimately though, it doesn't matter a wit how accurate a figure is if one likes it. That's the most material reason for getting anything'.

And before I'm suspected of being more enamoured of Papo than I claim, my position is simple: I value both the artistry and the science enormously, and I don't always have trouble valuing them independently of each other when they are warranted. I'm just as likely to praise Carnegie highly for their accuracy of features, as Papo for their artistic merits and 'animated' sense of realism. I risk sounding repetitive, but I think it bears it. I think the advocacy of an open mind is no bad thing.

If I seem to be showing greater defence towards Papo in the present context, it will be because I'm much more likely to defend something which appears to me to take more than its fair share of battering.

And yes, I very much look forward to Papo's embracing the current thinking in the production of their figures, because I feel certain that they will be simply beautiful, and more than likely to beat the competition hands down. When I speak of the possibility of 'great things' in this respect, it is not to disparage what they do now, but mindful of the vast advantage such a prospect would bring. It would also be beneficial in perhaps persuading detractors to begin looking more kindly upon them.

[[][][]cordylus[][][]]

Sept 30, 2010 22:32:02 GMT gfxtwin said:

I'd like to see that happen as well. Honestly, though, even if Papo continue to make a few inaccuracies with each figure, I won't care as long as the sculpting continues to remain as beautiful as it is. I get why scientific accuracy is important and all, but you know what? 50 years ago it was considered scientifically accurate for dinosaurs to drag their tails. A couple of decades ago there was still dispute over whether dinosaurs had feathers and which ones. Hell, Iguanodon's thumb was originally thought to be a horn.

My point is, why totally focus on scientific accuracy (and some toy companies do this more than others) when 20 years from now, a good number of what we currently know will be considered wrong again? Jurassic Park is is remembered and beloved because of the artistry involved in making those goofy-looking dinosaurs look realistic and memorable. If they were totally accurate, but they were not as well engineered as they were, I doubt that movie would have won an oscar.

In an ideal world, accuracy and artistry are at the same tremendous level, but if I had to choose one in regards to figures - artistry all the way. Don't get me wrong, companies like Carnegie have a great sculptor as well, but I've noticed that a lot of folks here are quick to complain about minute inaccuracies in some Papo figures (like big feet, antler-like horns, etc) but sometimes overlook/defend the inaccuracies (thin ankles, etc) awkward poses and sloppy painting of the Carnegie therapods.

Things such as "big feet" and "antler like horns" won't be proven right anytime soon ever, especially for all of the papo dinosaurs mostly complete skeletons have been discovered. The things we really don't know about are soft tissues like cartilage and keratin, which we will probably never know those what looked like. Things such as bad proportions or malformed horns or pronated hands, however, are easy to prove wrong looking at the fossils themselves.

Compare the "thin" ankles of the carnegie theropods to the skeletons, and you'll see not many are off (Besides the giga, don't know what they were thinking there - but it is very nicely done and well painted, so the inaccurate thin ankles shouldn't matter ) . The paint I'll give you, but at least the mold lines on the carnegie collection dinosaurs aren't extremely visible!

That being said I'd like papo to do more things like the allosaurus - that one was really cool, minus the various things like broken wrists etc. I'd love to see them do a todd marshall style mosasaur, actually!

[gfxtwin]

Oct 1, 2010 0:23:54 GMT Himmapaan said:

Sept 30, 2010 22:32:02 GMT gfxtwin said:

...I've noticed that a lot of folks here are quick to complain about minute inaccuracies in some Papo figures (like big feet, antler-like horns, etc) but sometimes overlook/defend the inaccuracies (thin ankles, etc) awkward poses and sloppy painting of the Carnegie therapods.

I notice this too. The main argument for such a stance would be that a greater attempt at accuracy has been made upon the whole by Carnegie, so that overlooking their shortcomings is perhaps more palatable. But I would suggest too that an uncomfortable posture with a lesser feel of vitality -- and consequently less impression of realism -- may not necessarily be more 'accurate' than, say, a misplaced horn. I also find puzzling the faint implication from some quarters that expressing a preference for artistry equals an ignorance of, or indifference towards, the science. It is possible for one to highly appreciate both, and indeed to appreciate whichever weight a certain company chooses to invest in their figures. I think we sometimes forget that the very act of creating miniature representations of something in order to purchase, treasure and admire them, is in its very nature an art. It is why so many of us collect all kinds of figures that no longer correspond to the current, correct view of the animals they depict, or that are purposefully stylised in all manner of ways. It is as I recently said on the Recent Acquisitions thread: 'Ultimately though, it doesn't matter a wit how accurate a figure is if one likes it. That's the most material reason for getting anything'.

And before I'm suspected of being more enamoured of Papo than I claim, my position is simple: I value both the artistry and the science enormously, and I don't always have trouble valuing them independently of each other when they are warranted. I'm just as likely to praise Carnegie highly for their accuracy of features, as Papo for their artistic merits and 'animated' sense of realism. I risk sounding repetitive, but I think it bears it. I think the advocacy of an open mind is no bad thing.

If I seem to be showing greater defence towards Papo in the present context, it will be because I'm much more likely to defend something which appears to me to take more than its fair share of battering.

And yes, I very much look forward to Papo's embracing the current thinking in the production of their figures, because I feel certain that they will be simply beautiful, and more than likely to beat the competition hands down. When I speak of the possibility of 'great things' in this respect, it is not to disparage what they do now, but mindful of the vast advantage such a prospect would bring. It would also be beneficial in perhaps persuading detractors to begin looking more kindly upon them.

Just in case you may have thought it, I just want to be clear that my post wasn't directed at you or anyone in particular. I was just commenting on the overall "vibe" that I've been sensing here in regards to Papo and Carnegie.

I agree with most of what you said. I apologize if I come across as a Papo "fanboy" - I'm really not. Like you probably do, I admit that all dino toy manufacturers have their pros and cons. I just feel obliged to say something when I see that one of them are being "battered", especially when said company does many things as good or better than most other manufacturers.

[tanystropheus]

Sept 29, 2010 11:05:32 GMT DinoLord said:

It would be wonderful if they did the JP Ankylo and Brachio. And redid the kangaroo Rex.

I would like to see a JP-style running T-rex sculpt.

[bokisaurus]

Oct 1, 2010 0:23:54 GMT Himmapaan said:

Sept 30, 2010 22:32:02 GMT gfxtwin said:

...I've noticed that a lot of folks here are quick to complain about minute inaccuracies in some Papo figures (like big feet, antler-like horns, etc) but sometimes overlook/defend the inaccuracies (thin ankles, etc) awkward poses and sloppy painting of the Carnegie therapods.

I notice this too. The main argument for such a stance would be that a greater attempt at accuracy has been made upon the whole by Carnegie, so that overlooking their shortcomings is perhaps more palatable. But I would suggest too that an uncomfortable posture with a lesser feel of vitality -- and consequently less impression of realism -- may not necessarily be more 'accurate' than, say, a misplaced horn. I also find puzzling the faint implication from some quarters that expressing a preference for artistry equals an ignorance of, or indifference towards, the science. It is possible for one to highly appreciate both, and indeed to appreciate whichever weight a certain company chooses to invest in their figures. I think we sometimes forget that the very act of creating miniature representations of something in order to purchase, treasure and admire them, is in its very nature an art. It is why so many of us collect all kinds of figures that no longer correspond to the current, correct view of the animals they depict, or that are purposefully stylised in all manner of ways. It is as I recently said on the Recent Acquisitions thread: 'Ultimately though, it doesn't matter a wit how accurate a figure is if one likes it. That's the most material reason for getting anything'.

And before I'm suspected of being more enamoured of Papo than I claim, my position is simple: I value both the artistry and the science enormously, and I don't always have trouble valuing them independently of each other when they are warranted. I'm just as likely to praise Carnegie highly for their accuracy of features, as Papo for their artistic merits and 'animated' sense of realism. I risk sounding repetitive, but I think it bears it. I think the advocacy of an open mind is no bad thing.

If I seem to be showing greater defence towards Papo in the present context, it will be because I'm much more likely to defend something which appears to me to take more than its fair share of battering.

And yes, I very much look forward to Papo's embracing the current thinking in the production of their figures, because I feel certain that they will be simply beautiful, and more than likely to beat the competition hands down. When I speak of the possibility of 'great things' in this respect, it is not to disparage what they do now, but mindful of the vast advantage such a prospect would bring. It would also be beneficial in perhaps persuading detractors to begin looking more kindly upon them.

;D Good observation ;D For some, they tend to forget that it all boils down to individual taste and likes and dislikes.
For me, I just like them for what they are: Toys ;D

[bokisaurus]

Oct 1, 2010 3:29:19 GMT gfxtwin said:

Oct 1, 2010 0:23:54 GMT Himmapaan said:

I notice this too. The main argument for such a stance would be that a greater attempt at accuracy has been made upon the whole by Carnegie, so that overlooking their shortcomings is perhaps more palatable. But I would suggest too that an uncomfortable posture with a lesser feel of vitality -- and consequently less impression of realism -- may not necessarily be more 'accurate' than, say, a misplaced horn. I also find puzzling the faint implication from some quarters that expressing a preference for artistry equals an ignorance of, or indifference towards, the science. It is possible for one to highly appreciate both, and indeed to appreciate whichever weight a certain company chooses to invest in their figures. I think we sometimes forget that the very act of creating miniature representations of something in order to purchase, treasure and admire them, is in its very nature an art. It is why so many of us collect all kinds of figures that no longer correspond to the current, correct view of the animals they depict, or that are purposefully stylised in all manner of ways. It is as I recently said on the Recent Acquisitions thread: 'Ultimately though, it doesn't matter a wit how accurate a figure is if one likes it. That's the most material reason for getting anything'.

And before I'm suspected of being more enamoured of Papo than I claim, my position is simple: I value both the artistry and the science enormously, and I don't always have trouble valuing them independently of each other when they are warranted. I'm just as likely to praise Carnegie highly for their accuracy of features, as Papo for their artistic merits and 'animated' sense of realism. I risk sounding repetitive, but I think it bears it. I think the advocacy of an open mind is no bad thing.

If I seem to be showing greater defence towards Papo in the present context, it will be because I'm much more likely to defend something which appears to me to take more than its fair share of battering.

And yes, I very much look forward to Papo's embracing the current thinking in the production of their figures, because I feel certain that they will be simply beautiful, and more than likely to beat the competition hands down. When I speak of the possibility of 'great things' in this respect, it is not to disparage what they do now, but mindful of the vast advantage such a prospect would bring. It would also be beneficial in perhaps persuading detractors to begin looking more kindly upon them.

Just in case you may have thought it, I just want to be clear that my post wasn't directed at you or anyone in particular. I was just commenting on the overall "vibe" that I've been sensing here in regards to Papo and Carnegie.

I agree with most of what you said. I apologize if I come across as a Papo "fanboy" - I'm really not. Like you probably do, I admit that all dino toy manufacturers have their pros and cons. I just feel obliged to say something when I see that one of them are being "battered", especially when said company does many things as good or better than most other manufacturers.

And your not even talking about CollectA ;D ;D ;D Just you wait till you say something nice about them

[Megaraptor]

Oct 1, 2010 6:31:22 GMT bokisaurus said:

Oct 1, 2010 0:23:54 GMT Himmapaan said:

I notice this too. The main argument for such a stance would be that a greater attempt at accuracy has been made upon the whole by Carnegie, so that overlooking their shortcomings is perhaps more palatable. But I would suggest too that an uncomfortable posture with a lesser feel of vitality -- and consequently less impression of realism -- may not necessarily be more 'accurate' than, say, a misplaced horn. I also find puzzling the faint implication from some quarters that expressing a preference for artistry equals an ignorance of, or indifference towards, the science. It is possible for one to highly appreciate both, and indeed to appreciate whichever weight a certain company chooses to invest in their figures. I think we sometimes forget that the very act of creating miniature representations of something in order to purchase, treasure and admire them, is in its very nature an art. It is why so many of us collect all kinds of figures that no longer correspond to the current, correct view of the animals they depict, or that are purposefully stylised in all manner of ways. It is as I recently said on the Recent Acquisitions thread: 'Ultimately though, it doesn't matter a wit how accurate a figure is if one likes it. That's the most material reason for getting anything'.

And before I'm suspected of being more enamoured of Papo than I claim, my position is simple: I value both the artistry and the science enormously, and I don't always have trouble valuing them independently of each other when they are warranted. I'm just as likely to praise Carnegie highly for their accuracy of features, as Papo for their artistic merits and 'animated' sense of realism. I risk sounding repetitive, but I think it bears it. I think the advocacy of an open mind is no bad thing.

If I seem to be showing greater defence towards Papo in the present context, it will be because I'm much more likely to defend something which appears to me to take more than its fair share of battering.

And yes, I very much look forward to Papo's embracing the current thinking in the production of their figures, because I feel certain that they will be simply beautiful, and more than likely to beat the competition hands down. When I speak of the possibility of 'great things' in this respect, it is not to disparage what they do now, but mindful of the vast advantage such a prospect would bring. It would also be beneficial in perhaps persuading detractors to begin looking more kindly upon them.

;D Good observation ;D For some, they tend to forget that it all boils down to individual taste and likes and dislikes.
For me, I just like them for what they are: Toys ;D

Same here. I just like them for what they are: little bundles of awesomeness.

[Meso-Cenozoic]

Well, I just wanted to add that I am always in awe of the extreme detailing Papo give's its figures, and even more so considering they are still in the "toy" category. I mean, none of the other museum line companies come close to what Papo does with their skin details, their nicely shaped individual teeth, and their subtle realistic paint shadings.

Yeah, in a perfect world they would be unstoppable in the toy lines if they had an in-house paleontologist working along side their artist. Hopefully one day soon they will. But until that day, I am proud and unashamed to say I will keep supporting and buying their new figures. ;D

Now, back on topic. I would love any Todd Marshall style prehistoric animal! I think Papo's artist would do Marshall's style justice.

[Himmapaan]

Oct 1, 2010 3:29:19 GMT gfxtwin said:

Just in case you may have thought it, I just want to be clear that my post wasn't directed at you or anyone in particular. I was just commenting on the overall "vibe" that I've been sensing here in regards to Papo and Carnegie.

I agree with most of what you said. I apologize if I come across as a Papo "fanboy" - I'm really not. Like you probably do, I admit that all dino toy manufacturers have their pros and cons. I just feel obliged to say something when I see that one of them are being "battered", especially when said company does many things as good or better than most other manufacturers.

Oh, of course, I didn't think that at all. I understood you and hoped to add my own thoughts in a similar vein. As I mentioned, I do think Papo get more than their fair share of battering, and most of what I tried to point out, as you see, was in agreement with your own positive points about them (in fact, I'm sure we're almost entirely in agreement).

I was adding other thoughts to make clear in general that my defence stems from admiration, not mere unconditional 'fandom' (which of course are different things). But you don't come across as a 'fanboy' at all and need never apologise.

Oct 1, 2010 6:33:34 GMT bokisaurus said:

And your not even talking about CollectA ;D ;D ;D Just you wait till you say something nice about them

The same is true for CollectA. They're riddled with inaccuracies, yet are more easily forgiven than Papo. But again, there are many good things about them which I truly appreciate (I won't list, lest we stray too far from the thread ).

And to return to the real heart of the topic: I agreed with Meso earlier that I'd dearly love to see Papo do a sauropod, preferably a Diplodocus. ;D

[foxilized]

But Papo is very accurate: they have done very accurate "Jurassic Park" models.

And I do want more of those.

[Tylosaurus]

Epanterias, yes I am fan of this bigger Allo, andtwoa hard to find sea Crocs these that is:

Metriorhynchus Superciliosus


Metriorhynchus Durobrivense


and some more Mosasaurs would be very nice also

[Horridus]

Hey, I appreciate the artistry of Papo's figures - I do own most of 'em - but wouldn't they be even better if the niggling inaccuracies were fixed? That's all I'm saying. But then maybe I'm getting greedy...

[sbell]

Well nobody is going to make figures of two different species within the same genus. At best, it would just be called 'Metriorhynchus'.

And you might have to settle for the 3 small figures that already exist--the Safari toob one, the Play Visions one, and the Dinotales one (in two different colours):

[Tylosaurus]

ahhh niice!!! thx for the tip there sbell

They do look wonderful I have to say, the gray /white one looks cool, looks like more things to look for on ebay hehe

[sbell]

Oct 1, 2010 15:52:25 GMT Tylosaurus said:

ahhh niice!!! thx for the tip there sbell

They do look wonderful I have to say, the gray /white one looks cool, looks like more things to look for on ebay hehe

No problem.

The Safari one is the easiest to find--it just came out this year. It really needs a stand though (as you can see, it rests awkwardly). And the toob figures are overall awesome anyway.

There will also be a Dakousaurus in a toob coming out in 2011.