|
|
Post by Blade-of-the-Moon on Apr 18, 2011 6:42:05 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by sid on Apr 18, 2011 9:48:16 GMT
Looks good, except for the raptors (shouldn't the arm feathers extend up to the second finger?) and that Tyrannosaurid (too human-proportioned arms and strange proportions overall, but maybe it's just that pic)  |
|
|
|
Post by Himmapaan on Apr 18, 2011 12:25:36 GMT
Oh, I say...
Would someone on these shores kindly remind me a day or so before it airs (I is looking at you, Marc -- you're the only one I can think of who is here regularly ;D)? I hardly watch television and am bound to forget.
|
|
|
|
Post by neovenator08 on Apr 18, 2011 14:19:01 GMT
I'm in the UK so I'll let you know.  |
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Apr 18, 2011 15:28:31 GMT
The plumage on those dromaeosaurs is very, very wrong. The one in the third image down just looks freakin' bizarre. What's with the tiny hands? Where are the wings? How come it mostly just has 'protofuzz' when dromaeosaurs were fully feathered? It kinda looks like they have - again - given in to people's 'expectations' of dromaeosaurs, ie. that they can't be too birdlike. Which is absurd. These look a bit like the horrible reconstructions in that big 'coffee table' book of dinosaurs (with the JP rip-off Spino on the cover). Although at least they are feathered, I guess. The tyrannosaur looks a bit better, and kudos to them for giving it fuzz, but the arms, again, are weird. |
|
|
|
Post by sid on Apr 18, 2011 15:36:29 GMT
Yeah, i agree with Horridus... JP Raptors are and always will be the best movie dromaeosaurids ever IMHO, but for a documentary they MUST be restored closer to reality... Arm feathers up to the second finger and completely or partially feathered heads!
|
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Apr 18, 2011 15:44:42 GMT
but for a documentary they MUST be restored closer to reality... Arm feathers up to the second finger and completely or partially feathered heads! QFT. They should basically look like birds. Because they did. The March dromaeosaurs definitely fall into the 'half arse' camp ( dinogoss.blogspot.com/2011/02/heat-feathers-and-half-arsed.html) except with horribly wrong hands. |
|
|
|
Post by rugops on Apr 18, 2011 16:56:35 GMT
The stills look awsome, I can't wait to see this.
|
|
|
|
Post by Blade-of-the-Moon on Apr 18, 2011 17:32:16 GMT
There are a few more on the site link I posted..I just put up what I thought were the best ones.
The addition of pliosaurs has me excited..glad to see that Sea Monsters IMAX film had some impact on the creators of these type of shows.
I think show started work in 2009, a few years ago we wouldn't have gotten even fluffy dinosaurs...so they're weaning the general public slowly onto new looks and ideas..I'm still pretty excited to watch it..even with some of the flaws.
There was more discussion going on in another forum where they were talking about how none of these species exactly lived at the same time..at least to our knowledge.
|
|
|
|
Post by Griffin on Apr 18, 2011 17:34:20 GMT
Eh some wrongly placed feathers is better than no feathers. Despite the evidence I feel its still going to take a while for the public to adjust to the image of how they really looked. About ten years ago the idea of feathered dinosaurs alone was strange and now look. Its def improving. It just takes time.
I'm more bugged about the tiny hands! Come on there is no excuse for that!
But still overall it looks really cool. I hope to see it if I can.
|
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Apr 18, 2011 17:48:28 GMT
I'm more bugged about the tiny hands! Come on there is no excuse for that! Reminds me of the various 'tiny hands on the end of the wings' wrong-o-Archaeopteryx illustrations that have plagued us over the years... I personally don't think 'people aren't used to seeing properly feathered dromaeosaurs' is much of an excuse for a documentary. I mean, if anything these guys look far MORE weird than accurately feathered ones. |
|
|
|
Post by Griffin on Apr 18, 2011 17:54:35 GMT
Well I'm not saying it is. But keep in mind the folks animating the things aren't the paleontologists. Many times they get it wrong and nothing is done about it.
That guy at my school who worked with animators for a dinosaur documentary told me one time that they animated a thropod's pubis bone to flop around as if it werent a bone and rather some sort of a weird scrotum.
|
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Apr 18, 2011 17:57:42 GMT
Well I'm not saying it is. But keep in mind the folks animating the things aren't the paleontologists. Many times they get it wrong and nothing is done about it. That guy at my school who worked with animators for a dinosaur documentary told me one time that they animated a thropod's pubis bone to flop around as if it werent a bone and rather some sort of a weird scrotum. Dear God that's weird. In any case, the show's PR makes a big deal, as usual, of collaboration with palaeontologists. The palaeontologist advisors/consultants would not have recommended that dromaeosaurs look this way - in which case, who did? Did they listen to their advisors? Why have advisors at all? All questions that have been raised before...often by palaeontologists who have served as consultants and found that they haven't been listened to. |
|
|
|
Post by dinoguy2 on Apr 18, 2011 18:22:56 GMT
Yeah, those are classic gorilla-suit raptors. This nonsense needs to stop already.
As for whether they all lived together in real life, based on the summary...
So it takes place about Horseshoe Canyon Formation age.
The animals seem to be...
Edmontosaurus sp.
Troodon sp.
Gorgosaurus libratus
Pachyrhinosaurus lakustai
Edmontonia sp.
Some kind of mosasaur
The only problems are a bit minor. Edmontosaurus regalis, an unnamed Troodon species, and Edmontonia longiceps all lived side by side in the HCF. They also lived with Pachyrhinosaurus, but it was P. canadensis not P. lakustai (but maybe this was in production before those were split, so they gave it the unicorn-horn to make it look cooler?).
Gorgosaurus however is much earlier. Albertosaurus lived at about the same time as the rest, and it would have been basically identical in appearance. Not sure why they chose the name Gorgosaurus instead since it wouldn't have changed anything.
|
|
|
|
Post by Himmapaan on Apr 18, 2011 19:47:28 GMT
Eh some wrongly placed feathers is better than no feathers. Despite the evidence I feel its still going to take a while for the public to adjust to the image of how they really looked. About ten years ago the idea of feathered dinosaurs alone was strange and now look. Its def improving. It just takes time. Do please forgive me for also wading against the tide of nerd-fury (hey, I'm only quoting Marc himself here ), but I'm afraid I agree with Chris. Yes, you all expected Himmapaan to make this oh-so-woolly observation, so I shan't disappoint. ;D We all know it's not good enough and of course I wholly agree there. But I still think this is a considerable step forward. I don't think I've seen many major documentaries with such a strong emphasis on feathered dinosaurs in recent years (it could simply be that I've just been ignorant of them). These things do take time beyound the spheres of us dino-nerds. Oh and thank you for the offer, Neovenator. I almost forgot. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Griffin on Apr 18, 2011 20:07:55 GMT
Dinoguy, no chance thats a Dromaeosaurus and not a Troodon? I thought they lived roughly around that time/place too.
|
|
|
|
Post by arioch on Apr 18, 2011 20:16:49 GMT
I agree with Himmappan. At least the dromies have some real feathers in the head and tip of the tail and the covering of the Rex seem to be big feathers rather than fuzz. That´s quite a brave decision and a significant step forward regarding paleo-documentaries. That said... the atrophied dromie arms are indeed unexcusable!  |
|
|
|
Post by dinoguy2 on Apr 19, 2011 0:10:34 GMT
Dinoguy, no chance thats a Dromaeosaurus and not a Troodon? I thought they lived roughly around that time/place too. I assumed it was Troodon since the description says Troodon is one of the main focuses of the show. Dromaeosaurus albertensis is only confidently known from earlier, but "dromaeosaurus" type teeth are known from that time and place. |
|
|
|
Post by zopteryx on Apr 19, 2011 1:53:04 GMT
Cool images!
Other than what's already been stated about inaccuracies, I also noticed that the mosasaur (assumed Platecarpus) lacks a shark-like tail. At what's it doing under an ice pack with some dinos flailing about? Is it supposed to be in fresh water?
Still really excited about this one though!
|
|
|
|
Post by Griffin on Apr 19, 2011 2:35:53 GMT
That may have been created after it was discovered mosasaurs had a fluke.
|
|
