|
|
Post by sbell on Sept 16, 2011 2:32:24 GMT
Initially I thought I would prefer PD over DR but after seeing the first episode of this and the first two of DR I'll have to change my mind. PD was good but it wasn't anything spectacular...just another dino documentary really. The CG was good but not as good as DR, the environments were lacking and the look of the animals less exciting. PD was more informative and I liked that and of course John Hurt helps too but when a rainy day comes along and I decide to re-watch one of these I'll pick DR or even WWD over PD. Though the movements of the animals in DR looked off (particularly the marine animals) I felt they looked worse in PD, the movements all looked jerky and mechanical, less fluid than that of the animals in DR. Overall PD has more to offer education wise but DR has more in terms of entertainment value. I'm still looking forward to future episodes and perhaps I'll change my mind again, what we really need is a documentary that combines the two and like WWD never cuts away from the action. I'll have to agree with Krissy. Any love I had for spinosaurus was lost with JP 3...not the dinosaurs fault of course but I felt over saturated with inaccurate spinosaurs. Seeing a spinosaur act the way it probably did here on PD really helped restore my love for the animal. Is PD filmed in the same super-rush music-video quick-cut style of DR? Because honestly, I am getting sick of documentaries that seem to think that their audience will somehow grow bored if the image on screen lingers for more than 10 seconds (curse you, Michael Bay). |
|
|
|
Post by gwangi on Sept 16, 2011 2:43:44 GMT
I wouldn't say so but it seems like all the dinosaurs ever did in PD is fight or eat. At least in DR they engaged in other activities as well, however unrealistic some of those things were. The animals in PD had no real character and the clips of them in action were often broken up to explain the science. The science was good but it took away from any feel of immersion you might get watching the animals.
For those who can't wait for it to come to the states I won't lie, I watched the video on YouTube.
|
|
|
|
Post by arioch on Sept 16, 2011 9:20:55 GMT
I actually think that animals lacking character is a point in its favor. Its the same feeling I have when I´m watching a documentary with modern animals. Thats the way a proper dino documentary is ought to be.
|
|
|
|
Post by phobotitan on Sept 16, 2011 11:59:17 GMT
I just saw the first episode of Planet Dinosaur on youtube & I have to say so far it's alot better than Dinosaur revolution. The animation is a little off compared to DR but that show was handicapped due to the inexplicable decision to turn it into a sitcom. WWD still beats both shows.
|
|
|
|
Post by brontozaurus on Sept 16, 2011 12:19:35 GMT
I enjoyed PD immensely, partly because of the whole 'shown their work' thing. It worked far better than DR's attempts, and even though they broke up the flow, the interstitials still kept it going since we didn't bounce back to talking heads.
The animation was a bit of a mixed bag. On one hand I like that the whole thing is CGI. The dinosaurs don't obviously stick out from their environments, and I liked the camera tricks that it allowed. On the other hand, some of the dinosaur animation was a bit stiff and unnatural looking (especially the Carcharadontosaurus/Ouranosaurus scene).
On the whole I enjoyed it, and I'm really looking forward to the next episodes!
|
|
|
|
Post by gwangi on Sept 16, 2011 20:41:03 GMT
I actually think that animals lacking character is a point in its favor. Its the same feeling I have when I´m watching a documentary with modern animals. Thats the way a proper dino documentary is ought to be. I disagree, many nature documentaries reveal the personalities of the animal stars and it only makes it more enjoyable. I"m going to use Big Cat Diary as an example (I often do). You truly felt like you were tied to the lives of these animals and their everyday struggle to survive. I got a similar feeling with DR, I was emotionally invested in that allosaurus. In PD the dinosaurs were just CGI animals killing and eating things and though the science was there the wow factor was not. There is a lot of difference between a nature documentary and a dinosaur documentary, the key being that the nature you're watching is real. In dino docs you get fake animals so it helps if the writers give you a way to connect with them. I'm not saying DR was perfect (far from it) just something different from what we typically see and in that way more memorable. I would really love to see a documentary that was a blend of both with the actual science tied into a believable story. We got that with WWD but WWD is getting a bit dated. |
|
|
|
Post by crackington on Sept 16, 2011 22:25:13 GMT
I enjoyed Dinosaur Planet and agree with the comments praising its use of the scientific evidence to back up, let's face it, what can only be a speculative story-line. The lack of this was a big criticism of WWD, although we should remember how that programme was a trail-blazer for what followed.
My only real gripes are:
1) the claim that Spinosaurus was the largest land predator ever. Given the lack of fossil evidence for that species, which the prog did mention, isn't that a claim too far? Doesn't the fossil evidence for Giganotosaurus indicate that that was bigger?
2) It would also be nice to mention some of the key scientists involved in these discoveries (e.g. Stromer named 50% of the dinos used in the show!) rather than allude to anonymous paleontologists.
Apart from that good show though!
|
|
|
|
Post by Krissy on Sept 16, 2011 22:39:42 GMT
I actually think that animals lacking character is a point in its favor. Its the same feeling I have when I´m watching a documentary with modern animals. Thats the way a proper dino documentary is ought to be. I disagree, many nature documentaries reveal the personalities of the animal stars and it only makes it more enjoyable. I"m going to use Big Cat Diary as an example (I often do). You truly felt like you were tied to the lives of these animals and their everyday struggle to survive. I got a similar feeling with DR, I was emotionally invested in that allosaurus. In PD the dinosaurs were just CGI animals killing and eating things and though the science was there the wow factor was not. There is a lot of difference between a nature documentary and a dinosaur documentary, the key being that the nature you're watching is real. In dino docs you get fake animals so it helps if the writers give you a way to connect with them. There's a fine line when making documenatries between making the show scientifically viable and keeping it entertaining. Big Cat Diary may be a good example of a show that gets this right, but Big Cat Diary is a pretty rare kind of documentary: despite what they claim, the majority of documenatries don't follow the same indiviual animals around and chronicle their lives. What we see onscreen is an ensemble of new footage, stock footage and narration trying to convince us we're following the same animal throghout. I think this can be acceptable in moderation, providing genuine science backs up what is being shown on screen. But in an attempt to create empathy for their animal stars, some shows go to extreme lengths. I recall one programme, The Lions of Crocodile River, where they tried to convince the viewer that this lioness was terrified of crocodiles because of a cubhood experience, and then we were shown an entirely fabricated event later in her life. Supposedly her cubs were being threatened by a crocodile so she plunged into the water and swam across to chase it off and save the day. The only thing is all three elements: the lioness, crocodile and cubs, never interacted because it was just stock footage arranged to make a story out of it. That may seem irrelevant, but my point is I think it's unwise if documenatries try too hard to be sentinmentally appealing. And for some reason with 'fake' Dinosaur documenatries I prefer it if they keep it more on the factual side rather than the dramatic. It's all well and good to follow and individual's hypothetical lifestyle, but I personally get really embarassed when the narrator starts giving the extinct animals name, like 'Spike the Spinosaurus' and 'Das the Daspletosaurus', etc. Just my thoughts, sorry to ramble on  |
|
|
|
Post by gwangi on Sept 16, 2011 23:22:27 GMT
There's a fine line when making documenatries between making the show scientifically viable and keeping it entertaining. Big Cat Diary may be a good example of a show that gets this right, but Big Cat Diary is a pretty rare kind of documentary: despite what they claim, the majority of documenatries don't follow the same indiviual animals around and chronicle their lives. What we see onscreen is an ensemble of new footage, stock footage and narration trying to convince us we're following the same animal throghout. I understand Big Cat Diary is the rare exception, I'm well seasoned on nature documentaries. That doesn't change the fact that this type of documentary is better than the norm and that is the only argument I was trying to make. When you know the animals, you're more invested in what happens to them and thus more interested. I never meant to insinuate that most nature shows were like this. Granted I did say "many" despite these being in the minority but Big Cat Diary is not the only one like this. I can think of several high quality BBC or National Geographic documentaries that do similar things. This is mostly irrelevant anyway, you can do anything you want with a dino doc so why not make them more like those rare successful nature docs? Why? Non-avian dinosaurs are extinct and aside from their bones we'll never get to see them. The best we can do is documentaries and when you're dealing with non-living CG cartoons it helps if there is a good story to back things up and draw the viewer in. Documentaries and movies are the only way we can experience dinosaurs as living animals so I say...go nuts! As long as science is addressed and the behavior believable I see no problem with a program like DR: The Watering Hole. You really cannot compare nature documentaries featuring real animals to one featuring extinct CG animals. Nature documentaries succeed because they show the real deal. How many times can we watch a CG animal do the same thing and eventually get bored? Spicing up the story or the characters is the best way to draw viewers and in the end inspire future dinosaur fanatics such as ourselves. When it comes to dinosaurs and the attraction they generate the art is just as important as the science....in some cases more so. |
|
|
|
Post by Krissy on Sept 16, 2011 23:32:31 GMT
I think if Planet Dinosaur had been, say, one hour long per episode and ten episodes long in a series, there'd have been room for more narrative. As it is it's strictly focused on bringing the public up to speed with the latest discoveries and theories, and doesn't really have the time to indulge in developing Dinosaur personalities.
There is room for storytelling like this - I'm the biggest fan of Ricardo Delgado's comics there is - but in a 30 minute, BBC, informative documentary, it's likely going to be sacrificed.
|
|
|
|
Post by gwangi on Sept 17, 2011 0:01:01 GMT
I think if Planet Dinosaur had been, say, one hour long per episode and ten episodes long in a series, there'd have been room for more narrative. As it is it's strictly focused on bringing the public up to speed with the latest discoveries and theories, and doesn't really have the time to indulge in developing Dinosaur personalities. There is room for storytelling like this - I'm the biggest fan of Ricardo Delgado's comics there is - but in a 30 minute, BBC, informative documentary, it's likely going to be sacrificed. That's all fine, but that is the reason I prefer DR |
|
|
|
Post by Krissy on Sept 17, 2011 0:04:27 GMT
Heh. I'll let you know what I think of it when I finally get the chance to see it. I have no idea how to watch it at the moment, and all I really know about it is that one of the T.rexes looks like he's wearing sunglasses.
|
|
|
|
Post by gwangi on Sept 17, 2011 0:14:14 GMT
Heh. I'll let you know what I think of it when I finally get the chance to see it. I have no idea how to watch it at the moment, and all I really know about it is that one of the T.rexes looks like he's wearing sunglasses. Are you talking about DR or PD? The first two episodes of DR and the first of PD are on YouTube. |
|
|
|
Post by Krissy on Sept 17, 2011 0:18:26 GMT
DR, I wouldn't be talking at length about PD without having seen it. And thanks for the tip honey, I'll go look up DR on YouTube now. |
|
|
|
Post by gwangi on Sept 17, 2011 0:22:01 GMT
DR, I wouldn't be talking at length about PD without having seen it. And thanks for the tip honey, I'll go look up DR on YouTube now. Touche! I look forward to hearing back from you on what you think of DR. |
|
|
|
Post by arioch on Sept 17, 2011 1:18:26 GMT
I totally agree with Krissy. The behaviour of DR dinosaurs just reminds all the time that those aren´t real animals, despite the great CGI ( and maybe excluding the dinosaurs in the last episode, whose CGI was really amazing and anthropomorphization, minimal). Enjoyable? no doubt, but not exactly what I expect in a believable depiction of extinct ecosystems. We really need more stuff like PD, which depict dinosaurs for what they were and not what we -concious or unconsciously- want them to be.
|
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Sept 17, 2011 3:00:50 GMT
I totally agree with Krissy. The behaviour of DR dinosaurs just reminds all the time that those aren´t real animals, despite the great CGI ( and maybe excluding the dinosaurs in the last episode, whose CGI was really amazing and anthropomorphization, minimal). Enjoyable? no doubt, but not exactly what I expect in a believable depiction of extinct ecosystems. We really need more stuff like PD, which depict dinosaurs for what they were and not what we -concious or unconsciously- want them to be. Trouble is we don't know all that much about Dinosaur behaviour. It's all speculative. I do hate it when they try to make Dinosaurs behave like people though. |
|
|
|
Post by arioch on Sept 17, 2011 4:20:15 GMT
But not random speculative. We know about modern avian dinosaurs or other archosaurs behaviour. Taking in account all the anatomical divergence, that´s a reliable pattern to follow. It would be enough with making them act (and sound) like archosaurs rather than any kind of mammals though. Heck, let them act like mere animals would be enough, thats what I meant with the way PD depict them .
|
|
|
|
Post by dinoguy2 on Sept 18, 2011 12:17:22 GMT
1) the claim that Spinosaurus was the largest land predator ever. Given the lack of fossil evidence for that species, which the prog did mention, isn't that a claim too far? Doesn't the fossil evidence for Giganotosaurus indicate that that was bigger? No, and not only that, the largest Giganotosaurus specimen is only the tip of the lower jaw, far more fragmentary than the largest Spinosaurus specimens. |
|
|
|
Post by gwangi on Sept 18, 2011 12:49:27 GMT
But not random speculative. We know about modern avian dinosaurs or other archosaurs behaviour. Taking in account all the anatomical divergence, that´s a reliable pattern to follow. It would be enough with making them act (and sound) like archosaurs rather than any kind of mammals though. Heck, let them act like mere animals would be enough, thats what I meant with the way PD depict them . I believe we can learn a lot about dinosaurs from extant archosaurs but sometimes it seems people rely on them too much. Saying we can infer what dinosaurs were like based on the behavior of birds and crocodiles is like saying we could learn everything we need to about mammals by studying bats and monotremes. I think PD did succeed on some level in making them behave realistically but you're right, they were greatly anthropomorphized. |
|
