Today we will be thoroughly looking over the Papo Spinosaurus– He is quite well loved in the dinosaur and Jurassic park communities, so I hope I don’t dampen spirits too much with my somewhat critical review 
As for Spinosaurus itself, it was an extremely large theropod dinosaur that lived in northern africa about 100 million years ago. It probably dined on fish and water living tetrapods.
Let’s start off with the head or this figure. To put it bluntly, basically everything is wrong, minus the long jaws. The lack of a “fish trap” at the end of the jaws, the relatively robustness of the skull, the large and backwards pointing teeth, the nostrils low on the snout, and the two crests are all extremely un-spinosaurid like. The inside of the mouth and the tongue are beautifully detailed, and the lower jaw is poseable (great for display purposes…). The eyes are green with slit pupils, suggesting a nocturnal lifestyle.
Now let’s focus on the body. Most everything is nice here. Great details and the claws are superb. I love the little spine/scute like projections on the back. The colors are very boring, only shades of grey (Also of note– The paint is very tacky when it gets warm[or at least with mine]). The arms could be a little more muscley, but that is really personal preference (No spinosaurus arms have been found to date). The sail is also very thin– Most likely it should be thicker, because the spines of the sail were very thick and buffalo like, so there was probably muscle and fat coating the sail, making it noticeably thick (There was probably NOT a “hump” like a camel though!). The feet seem a little large; but again, no spinosaurid limbs are known, so that is really personal taste. The body is very robust; perhaps too much– But it still looks nice. The detailing is exquisite. It also stands well, but since the plastic is relatively soft, when it becomes warm the legs can bend and the whole thing can fall flat on it’s face, and due to the delicate paint job, paint wear is just around the corner. The joints are extremely visible and distract away from the detail.
This is a very large figure– Fourteen inches long! He towers over most 1/40th scale dinosaurs.
Overall, I give this guy an 8/10. I do think this figure is a little overrated, but people love good details and the likeliness to Jurassic Park, so of course he flies off store shelves.
Available from Amazon.com (here)
Photo generously supplied by Bokisaurus
[...] Spinosaurus (Papo) Filed under: Papo, theropod — plesiosauria @ 3:31 pm This page is old, read the FULL REVIEW HERE [...]
Pingback by Spinosaurus (Papo) « The Dinosaur Toy Blog — May 23, 2009 @ 9:18 pm
I like Papo Spinosaurus.
Comment by Kancharl — June 30, 2009 @ 4:24 pm
What a depressing & negative review of a figure loved by so many collectors. Your 8/10 rating makes no sense as you bashed the figure during the entire review.
Comment by Andyk — August 5, 2009 @ 2:17 am
No, if you had read it through, I didn’t ONLY bash it. I did say some positive things. Read through it again
Comment by Cordylus — August 8, 2009 @ 4:49 pm
Cordy, we all know what a curmudgeon you are. The details are all wrong on the head?
Wait – how do you know the meaning of the word ‘DETAILS’ since your beloved Carnegie Spinosaurus HAS NONE???
This piece is a work of art that gets a 10/10 on any sane person’s scale.
It is NOT supposed to be a Foulkes or Strasserian paleo-sculpture.
It is a TOY, one which has duplicated the GENIUS of the late Stan Winston to a “T”.
THAT is why it won “Toy of the Year” honors. Something that NO Carnegie inferior Theropod need worry about.
Carnegie’s Spino is such a disappointment on so many levels that it makes me want to … nevermind… I HATE most Carnegie figures with a passion …
Comment by bucketfoot-al — November 1, 2009 @ 7:18 am
Well Obviously i read the review or i wouldn’t have bothered commenting on it. I still don’t understand you 8/10 rating with so many negative things to say on the figure. I think you need to read your own review and try again.
Comment by Andyk — August 21, 2009 @ 3:36 am
It seems people here don’t understand that people can have differing opinions?
bucketfoot-al, I think now you’re being downright rude and obnoxious.
Carnegie’s Spinosaurus is detailed, and Papo’s does have head problems. Justifying the ignorance gone into Papo’s Spinosaurus with it being a toy seems foolish. What would it cost them to get the details right? And Carnegie’s Spinosaurus has all the details it needs, and to come accross as a work of art.
I feel annoyed with Papo, as they encourage people to see prehistoric animals with many mitakes.
Comment by Sim — November 1, 2009 @ 11:36 am
Yes, I was. But Cordy can take it, at his age that kind of give-and-take is common among friends (as far as I can recall that far back). Check out the other review of the Carnegie Spino where I implored him to stop smoking crack before posting his comments.
Yes, it was late when I posted, and yes, I was cranky. It gets the best of me sometimes.
Comment by bucketfoot-al — November 6, 2009 @ 9:49 pm
I agree with Sim’s comments about Carnegie’s Spino, but the Papo version, while being inaccurate in some respects, is much more, erm, is ‘dynamic’ the right word?
Comment by megaraptor1000 — November 1, 2009 @ 9:05 pm