It's the Dinosaur Toy Blog! (constantly updated)

[dinotoyblog]

Is the 'raptor' supposed to be a Deinonychus or a Velociraptor?

[thetyrantlizard]

I think it is indisputable that Papo based its models on the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park. I don't see why there's anything wrong with that, other than a lack of imagination on the part of Papo. But most dinosaur fans of this generation were introduced to the dinosaur world by Jurassic Park, so it is but natural toys that look like Jurassic Park dinosaurs would be sought after. Especially since Kenner was absorbed into @$$bro, the "official" Jurassic Park line has had nothing to do with the appearance of the dinosaurs in the movie--heck, some of them bear no resemblance to any creature that has ever existed (i.e. the scutosaurus, the duckbill baryonyxes, the long-armed carnotaurs -- it is pardonable in JPS2 carno, but by TLW it was perfectly clear that the arms of carnotaurus were little more than 4-fingered stubs).

And what is the complaint about the lack of 'critical thinking"? The unimaginativeness I can understand--it is precisely the point of Papo that everything it does resembles JP, but they are running out of dinos to, erm, 'flatter'. But what critical thinking is required to produce a dinosaur toy? And how is making dinosaurs with fine details the 'stupidest' mistake in '10 years'?

Let me be blunt. Are the Safari models as good as the Papos? The Schleichs? Bullyland? Even the Invictas? Is Emperordinobot going to tell me the Invicta rex is better than the Papo rex? Not even Battat is better, though it has less to do with the sculpts than with the manufacturer's execrable quality control, which seemed nonexistent. If Emperordinobot doesn't realise that Papo is, at least for now, the apex of mass-produced dinosaur toys--and there are many models of tyrannosaurs worth several hundred dollars that don't remotely match the Papo t-rex in detail and quality--if Emperordinobot doesn't realise this, he should stick to watching Michael Bay's Transformers movie.

[thetyrantlizard]

dinotoyblog said:

Is the 'raptor' supposed to be a Deinonychus or a Velociraptor?

The raptor is nominally a velociraptor in JP and Papo; however, it has been said that the basis for the appearance of the velociraptor in JP is a sculpture of deinonychus made by Stephen Czerkas in the pre-feathered dromeosaur days, so I personally have considered the velociraptor a deinonychus ;D Also, a paleo student mentioned on the JPToys forum that the moviemakers were following Gregory Paul's classification in Predatory Dinosaurs of the World that deinonychus and velociraptor were synonymous.

[thetyrantlizard]

*Must take more sedatives* I'm beginning to ramble

Though I'm sure Thorondor will have a lot to say about this ;D

I still can't believe Emperordinobot called it the "stupidest mistake" in dinosaur toys in 10 years. He must not have seen many dinosaur toys recently then

[thetyrantlizard]

My apologies if I sound too heated, but really. Let me just say that if I were to be stuck on a desert island, the only dinosaurs I'd take would be the Papo dinosaurs and the Battat diplodocus and a few other sauropods.

[dinotoyblog]

Hmm - I'm sitting on the fence.

"Even the Invictas?"

I like Invicta because they are 'retro' in the same way I like the 'retro' Papo Velociraptor. The difference is, that Invicta are 30-ish years old, they have a reason to be retro. No doubt, if invicta-quality models were created today, they would be 'better' than Papo, whatever 'better' means. I'm thinking of the Troodon and Lambeosaurus they released more recently.

Sticking to the raptor, you mentioned that only the hands and tail are no accurate. But if the figure doesn't even know what genus it is trying to be, how can ANY of it be accurate? My point is (as you rightly figured) that this figure is really based on a movie monster, not a dinosaur. Granted, it is an exceedingly accurate movie monster. Its all subjective whether a highly detailed inaccurate dinosaur toy is better or worse than a poorly detailed accurate one.

I also rate the Walking with Dinosaurs line, in terms of quality and accuracy, way above Papo.

[dinotoyblog]

Sorry, didn't see the mot recent posts. If it is a Deinonychus, it still had problems. I will fish out a pic of the skull..



I know I'm nitpicking and that this is not unique to Papo, but the head of the JP/Papo Deinonychus is dodgy.

[thetyrantlizard]

I do rate the Walking with Dinosaurs line by Toyway very highly too--it's the only other complete line of dinos I have aside from Papo--but while their fidelity to the film dinos is unquestioned, the reconstructions are.

The ankylosaurus for instance--the most authoritative reconstruction by Kenneth Carpenter reveals that Ankylosaurus did not have much in the way of spikes and knobs--the armour consisted primarily of wide flat plates, so BBC and Toyway are way off in the reconstruction. But I can hardly conclude from that premise, unlike Emperordinobot, that it is the most stupid mistake in dinosaur modelling in 10 years! The ankylosaurus is a very nice toy.

[thetyrantlizard]

I do wish Invicta still had the license for the Museum of Natural History toy line. The Toyway replacements have been greeted less than enthusiastically.

[thetyrantlizard]

I just purchased the Bullyland deinonychus model from eBay. I'm going to compare it with the Papo raptor and see which of the two is more accurate ;D Sorry, it too has no fuzz

[dinotoyblog]

thetyrantlizard said:

But I can hardly conclude from that premise, unlike Emperordinobot, that it is the most stupid mistake in dinosaur modelling in 10 years!

Agreed! Many plesiosaurs for example place the eyes in the upper temporal fenestrae instead of the orbits, the carnegie Kronosaurus makes me cringe. However, giving a replica teeth becasue the movie upon which it is based thought teeth would look better, is in my opinion worse than getting the distribution or quantity of armour plating slightly wrong. I think the difference is that some mistakes are due to the limits of current knowledge (Invictas upright T. rex and dragging sauropod tails etc), others are due to sloppy research, an others still are purposely adding mistakes for dramatic effect.

[thetyrantlizard]

But from what I can tell there is really nothing about the Papo line (except for those pteranodon teeth) that are really so egregious departures from the actual dinosaurs (and not just the JP movie dinos) to warrant Emperordinobot's gibe that they are the worst mistake in dinosaur modelling in ten years, and that they should stop production! Does Emperordinobot mean he would prefer MadinaChinasaurs, with triceratopses with carnivorous teeth, two-fingered allosaurs, three-fingered tyrannosaurs, ad infinitum, to be in production, while Papo shuts down?!

And if ED (somehow that acronym seems apropos ;D ) wants dinosaur modelling mistakes within the past ten years, take Schleich's tyrannosaurs. I have seen 4 of them, and none of them are in any way, shape, or form more accurate than Papos--they almost all drag their tails, even the model released last year, and the sculpts of the head are more boxlike than Papo's.

[dinotoyblog]

Yep, as far as I can see, most of them are very fine indeed, i.e., the Jurassic Park originals were fine indeed. They are nice.

My only gripe is with the Pteranodon and the 'raptor'. You also already pointed out the odd teeth in the Parasaurolophus. The Pachycephalosaurus is too small (presuming it is an adult). Just thank goodness there is no Dilophosaurus in the set

I have not seen the Spinosaurus - does it have two ridges above the eyes? If so, it should have one on the midline. I will be getting a blog contributor (and spinosaurid researcher) to review the spiney soon - my original review was superficial.

Here is a thought - Papo are clearly rip-off dinosaurs - I wonder if anybody at Universal (or wherever) is considering sueing Papo - or perhaps Papo have an agreement? Do you think they woud have a case. We are a bit off topic so I will move this paragraph to a new thread...please reply there...

[thetyrantlizard]

The pachycephalosaurus is indeed diminutive, and I think someone brought it to Papo's attention, so now it is officially a Baby pachycephalosaurus in the catalogue ;D And admittedly the scale of the models are inconsistent--though that is true with most lines nowadays, except Schleich.

And the spino does have the two eye ridges, but no midline flare; and I do admit the jaw still seems too wide, especially if it is supposed to resemble that of the gharial--although in fairness to Papo, the "museum quality" spinosaurus of Carnegie and the recently retired spinosaurus of Schleich are even more inaccurate

[thetyrantlizard]

But if Papo does commit the sin of releasing a dilophosaur with a frill I will abdicate my position as Self-Proclaimed Evangel of Papo to the masses ;D