Safari Ltd. - New for 2023

[EpicRaptorMan]

To be honest, this figure looks more like this artist's illustration of a Barred Owl. Would be a more appropriate size too.

Hope for better SafariLtd reveals to come. Still have fingers crossed.

[Gwangi]

Regarding the Naturalism GGO, the features of the face are no less exaggerated than they are on Safari's. They might be more refined, but they're not in line with @EpicRaptorMan's "typical GGO appearance" claim. Still looks like "cake frosting".

[SerAndrew]

At least Naturalism has a beak and not a peanut haha

And I said Naturalism is "better", not "perfect"

Why is so important for you that 2-3 people in this forum like that figure?

[Gwangi]

At least Naturalism has a beak and not a peanut haha

And I said Naturalism is "better", not "perfect"

Why is so important for you that 2-3 people in this forum like that figure?

It's really not. But what are these forums for if not to discuss these figures? I just wanted to get to the bottom of the vague and negative reactions to this figure. And I've been relatively quiet  in this thread since Blaine politely asked everyone to calm down. You responded with your reasons for disliking the figure, which is what I actually wanted, and that was sufficient for me. But now that I can see the Naturalism GGO I wanted to react to it, and so I did. 

[JimoAi]

. I didn't expect drama over a modern owl figure whilst I was gone which I don't understand. I must be a sweet summer child

[stargatedalek]

Gonna be honest, while I think the GGO one has better face details, both are leagues ahead of that Bullyland one. Most of these owls aren't just solid slate grey, they are very spotty and often lighter grey than people think.

[Shane]

To be honest, this figure looks more like this artist's illustration of a Barred Owl. Would be a more appropriate size too.

Hope for better SafariLtd reveals to come. Still have fingers crossed.

I'm not really seeing this at all, unless you specifically mean the pose.

Barred owls have dark eyes, a less flattened facial disc, less distinctive white "X" between the eyes, lack the "bowtie" white patterning on the chin (they have a white chin, but it's not divided into the "tie" shape like the GGO), and have a prominent "ruff" of feathers on their neck, all of which you can see in the illustration posted.

None of those features, quite distinctive to barred owls are present on the Safari GGO figure.

Additionally, the streaky lined pattern of the barred owl's abdomen is distinct from the mottled feathering of its back (this is why it's called a "barred" owl). The GGO's patterning is pretty consistent on its front and back side, which is again reflected on the Safari GGO.

Again, I know this figure is not everyone's cup of tea in this forum, but there are some criticisms (e.g. "it looks more like a barred owl") that just leave me scratching my head.

As far as folks thinking the talons and beak aren't detailed or sharp enough, that's just the compromise that you cannot avoid with a children's toy. You don't have to like it, but I recommend keeping realistic expectations.

The Naturalism GGO does have some nice details, but the awkward pose and stunted rear proportions to force it into a flat sitting position would seem like issues worth pointing out, given some of the criticisms mentioned with the Safari GGO.

[EpicRaptorMan]

To be honest, this figure looks more like this artist's illustration of a Barred Owl. Would be a more appropriate size too.

Hope for better SafariLtd reveals to come. Still have fingers crossed.

I'm not really seeing this at all, unless you specifically mean the pose.

Barred owls have dark eyes, a less flattened facial disc, less distinctive white "X" between the eyes, lack the "bowtie" white patterning on the chin (they have a white chin, but it's not divided into the "tie" shape like the GGO), and have a prominent "ruff" of feathers on their neck, all of which you can see in the illustration posted.

None of those features, quite distinctive to barred owls are present on the Safari GGO figure.

1) A black paint brush easily fixes the first concern (tbh the easiest repaint someone could imagine)
2) minor imperfection
3) it's either this or you get cake frosting. There's not really an in-between lol
4) minor imperfection

Most of us here, for any other figure, would consider "not dark enough eyes, 1/2oz of too much white on the chin, and not a 110% sculpted head to overall be pretty good all things considered. Which I find these to be all pretty petty complaints. Lesser so than complaints of super small sizing, poor feet details, cake frosting, thick facial disk markings, posture, and just plain not grey enough.

[Shane]

Most of us here, for any other figure, would consider "not dark enough eyes, 1/2oz of too much white on the chin, and not a 110% sculpted head to overall be pretty good all things considered.

So you're saying folks on this forum (and in this community in general) are forgiving to minor imperfections and inaccuracies on a figure? I've been on here and the DTF for a while now, I've seen the reactions to every Safari release since 2017.

That statement isn't even true if you consider only this specific thread.

[EpicRaptorMan]

@Shane I'm more willing to forgive minor imperfections that can easily be fixed with minimal paint work. But this SafariLtd GGO would require much more of an overhaul imo.

[endogenylove]

I still prefer the bullyland owl honestly. Both the safari and the naturalism are much lighter than I expect for a great grey owl, and despite the lack of barring and some details, the pose and sculpting are much better. I will stick with the bullyland until/unless a different great grey owl is released.

[stargatedalek]

I'm starting to think a lot of this is coming down to the animal having a stereotypical appearance that just isn't very common for the real thing. Despite the name, and the image people seem to have in their heads, these birds are not normally slate grey.

[EpicRaptorMan]

Looking at the photos posted here. And yeah. Pretty grey looking.

[SerAndrew]

@Shane, make the same exercise you did with the barrel owl, with the same level of exigence, but with a GGO.

If you are able to see the minor problems with the former you'd be able to see the problems with the later.

And you can do the same with the Safari's proportions as you did with the Naturalism.

Don't take this as an offense, please, but given you are able to detect those flaws, I can only think that is your Safari fanatism the one avoiding you to see the Safari figure as it is.

And, yes, people here forgive minor and not minor imperfections on Safari figures. Which is OK, but it's a fact. Even last year okapi was liked...

Again: no drama in my comment, people like what they like and brands are totally fine to make their aesthetic decisions as they want as well as people can select what they like for their collections.
But it's good to have some debate as soon as we don't enter in personal attacks (which I haven't).

And, as it was said, I'm happy that Safari is doing some wildlife outside the IC line, and even more happy that this is from WoW. But I wish there's something more, it's been some years now without any new Safari figure for me

[Shane]

@Shane, make the same exercise you did with the barrel owl, with the same level of exigence, but with a GGO.

If you are able to see the minor problems with the former you'd be able to see the problems with the later.

And you can do the same with the Safari's proportions as you did with the Naturalism.

Don't take this as an offense, please, but given you are able to detect those flaws, I can only think that is your Safari fanatism the one avoiding you to see the Safari figure as it is.

And, yes, people here forgive minor and not minor imperfections on Safari figures. Which is OK, but it's a fact. Even last year okapi was liked...

Again: no drama in my comment, people like what they like and brands are totally fine to make their aesthetic decisions as they want as well as people can select what they like for their collections.
But it's good to have some debate as soon as we don't enter in personal attacks (which I haven't).

And, as it was said, I'm happy that Safari is doing some wildlife outside the IC line, and even more happy that this is from WoW. But I wish there's something more, it's been some years now without any new Safari figure for me

From what I gather from your previous comments, your issue with the Great Grey Owl come down to it looking "cartoony", having off proportions, and having blunt claws and beak. For the latter issue I've explained it's a safety compromise - there's nothing to be done there, it's a child's toy. For the supposed cartoony nature and proportion issues you bring up, those complaints could be easily applied to the Naturalism owl you've held up as the gold standard for this animal. The proportions of that figure are very off due to needing to force a sitting upright posture without the aid or a branch or stump, and the cartoony pose is meant to be "goofy" by design.

But if you don't like the figure, that's fine, you've voiced your concerns and I may not agree with them, but they're your concerns, and that's fine.

My main issue here is with EpicRaptorMan who has been very dismissive about anyone commenting on his issues with the figure. The coloration for example, he points to a few photos in this thread showing that GGOs are grey. But there are countless photos available with a single Google search showing variation and that many, many GGOs are streaked with brown.

His logic is very circular saying the GGO looks like a barred owl, but then saying that the distinctions between the two, which I pointed out, amount to "minor" differences, when apart from size they are in fact the main distinctions between these two closely related owls.

It just seems like in his case, as stargatedalek pointed out, he has an idea in his head of what a GGO should look like that doesn't necessarily align with the actual animal.

And that's honestly okay if that's how he feels. I just wish he was less dismissive of other folks' comments in this discussion.

That's the last I'll say on it.

One brief last thing - my interest in Safari is not "fanatism". I'm sure someone else on here will be happy to fill you in on why I have an interest in this community's thoughts on Safari figures.

[SerAndrew]

Last think I'd say as well is that Naturalism GGO is not "gold standard" for this animal. Just think it's the best so far, the most detailed and more in line with the realism I ask for a figure.

Ah! And, again, the blunt claws made for children doesn't prevent the feature to be wrong! Is like if the figure was painted blue because grey paint is toxic: the reason is there, I know, but the feature is not.

[Shane]

Last think I'd say as well is that Naturalism GGO is not "gold standard" for this animal. Just think it's the best so far, the most detailed and more in line with the realism I ask for a figure.

That's fair.

Ah! And, again, the blunt claws made for children doesn't prevent the feature to be wrong! Is like if the figure was painted blue because grey paint is toxic: the reason is there, I know, but the feature is not.

Right, but that's simply not something that can be helped in this situation. I understand the criticism, but as I've said, it's important to have realistic expectations.

[Gwangi]

Well, it seems there's been such a discussion after my "it's not good" comment...

First of all, I agree, by saying "It's not good" one should give some arguments. But I honestly see it clearly that this one is NOT good and I didn't expected so strong support by anyone, despite most people would like it (even more being Safari...).

Apart from the cartoonish looking (which is something Safari had always had and is totally acceptable, that's their artistic approach) this figure, and this is something I'm surprised no one has stated, has totally weird proportions.
And when showing comparison pictures with the real animal that's something that one suddendly notices.

Then, being the face the most charismatic feature of this creature, I will ask any figure to have it done properly. And I know that's not easy, but I have said "it's not good", not "how easy it was to make it good".

Also, feet are so disturbing, with such blunt claws. It totally takes me out of the figure. And, yes, it is me giving such importance to such a feature, but it is objectively "not good". I know these are made for children, but my concern si the same.

But what really "bothers" me is the praise to Safari and the despise to other brands. This is something we have discussed maaaaaaaaaaaaaaany times, but it's still a reality. For me this figure is same quality than the Schleich harpy eagle, which is also "not good". And that one is definitely not defended by anyone here.
Besides, I'm not a dino expert but, accepting that Safari is highly accurate (which I don't know), their dinos are completely weird in colours, vague in patterns, orthopedic in the poses and lazy in feet and hands (I know, they are made for children...). But I know the reactions this may bring and this is only my opinion.

Ah, I don't like the Bullyland either and I don't think I should post the Naturalism owl when making reference to it here, but still:

https://www.yoybuy.com/p/iChaGXkBx8KbCfwodtxh.html

 

All of this basically tells me that you @SerAndrew  don't like Safari Ltd. products, which is fine, but then why are you here in this thread? Safari's goals and aesthetic has remained mostly unchanged for decades. They're kid's toys, you said it yourself. They've always blunted the sharp bits and simplified the paint apps. You're coming in here and pointing out blunt claws and I just have to roll my eyes and chuckle, because of course they're blunt! And as a parent, I'm thankful for it. My daughter has already played with this owl and I don't need her pricking her finger or stabbing the bottom of her foot on a kid's toy so that adult collectors will be satisfied with it. These aren't made for you! 

You're bothered by the praise that Safari gets around here. I'm bothered by everyone getting excited by Safari reveals every year just to then be disappointed because Safari does the same thing to their toys that they've ALWAYS done. No, I'm not going to judge this owl on the things you mentioned because it is exactly what I expected from Safari in the first place. What you're doing here is analogous to me going into a Playskool or Playmobile thread and criticizing the stylization and simplification of their toys because they don't appeal to my adult aesthetic. Sound ridiculous? It is. And if you don't like kid toys there are plenty of animal models, sculptures, wood carvings, and other collectables that aren't child safe and made specifically for adults.

[suspsy]

Some of the posts in this thread make me wonder why these people even bother to collect animal figures in the first place.

[JimoAi]

even tho I'm spoilt for choices with Japanese branded figures, I still think some of safari's figures esp the sea animals could fit in with the Japanese releases despite some having blunt teeth, wonky proportions (lack of caudal keel in mako and great whites) and some figures like their 2016 great white needing to be bigger. I've started with Safari ltd growing up with many toob figures like the ocean, sharks and coral reef and looking forward in 2023, the figures are getting better like the sand tiger, 2019 sperm whale and they finally gave proper caudal keels in the case of the Salmon shark. I love the plastic and paint on these figures and even tho as an adult who buys these figures to display, I do 'play' with them from time to time by taking them from the shelves and admiring the details or for the need to handle something to keep my mind busy as I myself have ADHD.