[cabbage]

What are we all thinking?

In keeping with my newfound grumpy persona I am of course hating it

To be fair I've only watched the first episode so far but its done nothing to make me want to watch another I'm afraid. My biggest bugbear from the first episode is why does the narrator keep saying 'killer' (actually that should probably be 'KILLER!!!!') dinosaur when he means 'predator' or 'carnivore'? Once or twice I could handle but it was happening two or three times a minute!

That aside I din't mind the narration too much, my biggest problem was the animation/visual effects/CGI/whatever its called. Its now almost 20 years since Jurassic Park came out, how come the CGI on this series looks like it was made about 20 years before that? I'm aware the movie had a much, MUCH larger budget but surely the state of the art has moved on a bit?

Nothing seems to carry any weight or inertia about it. This is a pretty common problem with rubbish CGI but it can still be done well. Its particularly noticeable when two CGI objects interact which unfortunately as a pure CGI show was happening a lot. The worst bits for me where when the Spinosaurus was supposed to be tearing at a carcass, it just looked awful IMO.

Next - and I'm not commenting on the science behind it,I am in no way qualified to do that! - the way the animals moved, especially when walking or running was just ridiculous. I simply do not believe that it's accurate, surely no group of species could be as successful as the dinosaurs for such a long period while walking like they were wearing a nappy? Again I'm not saying the science of how they moved is wrong but I am saying it looks like its been really badly animated when moved to the screen. I thought perhaps that it may just be that the way bipedal dinosaurs moved does look inherently ridiculous to my eye (lets hope I never get sucked into a timewarp and come across a real one!) but again they managed it in the movies 20 years ago and even in Walking with Dinosaurs (though it had its own problems )

I was also left a bit confused by some of the science. I really like the way they stopped the action every now and again to explain the scientific discoveries and techniques that had led to some of their conclusions but either they weren't going into enough detail or much, much more of what we know about dinsosaurs is pure guesswork than I thought?

I did really like the way they depicted the colours and skin textures/patterns of the animals though, I guess that must all be conjecture but it looked good giving some zebra stripes etc.

I'm of the firm belief that there is no TV show, Movie or Book ever made that could not be improved by the addition of a dinosaur, a space ship or a pirate (and preferably all three) so I really want to like this show.

[Hawk_Eye]

That aside I din't mind the narration too much, my biggest problem was the animation/visual effects/CGI/whatever its called. Its now almost 20 years since Jurassic Park came out, how come the CGI on this series looks like it was made about 20 years before that? I'm aware the movie had a much, MUCH larger budget but surely the state of the art has moved on a bit?

I totally agree, love "Jurassic Park" by the way. I mentioned this on another thread but will reiterate myself. The CGI looks like something from a cheap video game. Having said that the company that was used is the same one that worked on the ITV series "Primeval" so some allowances must be made I think this series certainly isn't as good visually as "Walking with Dinosaurs". I'm just hoping the accompanying book will be a worthwhile buy.

[Deimos]

I totally agree, love "Jurassic Park" by the way. I mentioned this on another thread but will reiterate myself. The CGI looks like something from a cheap video game. Having said that the company that was used is the same one that worked on the ITV series "Primeval" so some allowances must be made I think this series certainly isn't as good visually as "Walking with Dinosaurs". I'm just hoping the accompanying book will be a worthwhile buy.

I would suspect that the quality of the GCI can be limited by the budgets the production are prepared to spend. More money=better effects.

One thing that frustrates me about Jurassic Park (and similar) is how they need to change scientific things for dramatic reason. Remember the Velociraptor ? Well the Velociraptor known to science was only about half a meter high. There were other similar dinosaurs that were larger - but I guess the film people liked the name "Velociraptor" (but not the animal) so they just misled people. Why not have "staring Deinonychus" - closer to the animals they used but I hate it when such unnecessary twisting takes place. Turns me against other quite harmless (or even good) aspects.

Ian

[Thylacine]

Hi Guys,

Us four back here again! Well... to be controvertial ... I actually liked Planet Dinosaur (yes... honestly, I did). As I recorded it, I couldn't help picking up on Cabbage's comments about the rediculous overuse of "Killer" instead of "predator" - no doubt trying to hype up the piece some more. But otherwise, I thought it was good. [Let me say, I'm watching this on a 12 year old telly so the CGI looked OK to me on my prehistoric non-HD set] I loved the way the production team dug bits of other dinosaurs out of an original fossil so they could tell the prey of fossil predators or the predators of their fossil prey. This is great as it actually tells us about what other species dinosaur is eating /fighting with and really helps to flesh out the bones. I liked the theory about the big carnivore slashing it's prey and then withdrawing (like a great white) to let it bleed out. Yes, interesting and fun (I watched this with my kids) and we all know it's not meant to be 100% gospel but padded out with conjecture. Looking forward to the next

[cabbage]

I've come up with another annoyance
I said in my previous post that I liked the fact that they'd given many of the dinos a much more 'realistic' appearance, giving some zebra or tiger type stripes for instance rather than the uniform green or brown skin I remember their depictions having in my childhood. I still think this is a good thing, but why have they given the dinosaurs what look like 'primitive' versions of real world animal camouflage?
The Zebra skinned herbivores (I'm afraid I've forgotten their name) for instance only have the black and white stripes covering a small portion of their backs, ending half way down their flanks as though they were 'unfinished' somehow. I don't think this is how evolution works. Creatures like the zebra existing today are not 'more evolved' than the dinosaurs. The dinosaurs were around for millions of years, they would have had camouflage that was just as good as anything existing today, it wouldn't be some primitive 'half evolved' halfway house. Evolution is not a straight line series of progressions from then to now with earlier stuff being rubbish and stuff existing today being some sort of pinnacle. I think.

I totally agree, love "Jurassic Park" by the way. I mentioned this on another thread but will reiterate myself. The CGI looks like something from a cheap video game. Having said that the company that was used is the same one that worked on the ITV series "Primeval" so some allowances must be made I think this series certainly isn't as good visually as "Walking with Dinosaurs". I'm just hoping the accompanying book will be a worthwhile buy.

I liked Primeval, it was a good fun fluffy show and probably the first thing I've watched on ITV for about 10 years! Having said that its CGI was definitely NOT its strong point, being decidedly ropey at best, so it comes as no surpise to find its the same company behind this. Unfortunately this programme doesn't have the girl that used to be in S-Club wandering around in her pants (or the male lead wandering about with his stubble and biceps for those that way inclined) to distract you

The CGI is just way below par and I can't make myself forget it and just lose myself in the programme without being jarred out by something stupid. I agree with you on the book I'll certainly be looking out for that in my bargain book store after it comes out! The Open Uni often does short courses based on these sort of programmes too so I'll watch out for that as well.

One thing that frustrates me about Jurassic Park (and similar) is how they need to change scientific things for dramatic reason. Remember the Velociraptor ? Well the Velociraptor known to science was only about half a meter high. There were other similar dinosaurs that were larger - but I guess the film people liked the name "Velociraptor" (but not the animal) so they just misled people. Why not have "staring Deinonychus" - closer to the animals they used but I hate it when such unnecessary twisting takes place. Turns me against other quite harmless (or even good) aspects.

Ian

Completely agree! Though I guess it was Michael Crichton that made the decision. I can see the point that Deinonychus is more difficult to say mind you - these are actors we're dealing with! It just seems to be a symptom of Hollywood though, 'the rule of cool'. They take incredible liberties with all sorts of things from history, to science to military hardware etc, etc that drives me nuts.

Hi Guys,

Us four back here again! Well... to be controvertial ... I actually liked Planet Dinosaur (yes... honestly, I did). As I recorded it, I couldn't help picking up on Cabbage's comments about the rediculous overuse of "Killer" instead of "predator" - no doubt trying to hype up the piece some more. But otherwise, I thought it was good. [Let me say, I'm watching this on a 12 year old telly so the CGI looked OK to me on my prehistoric non-HD set] I loved the way the production team dug bits of other dinosaurs out of an original fossil so they could tell the prey of fossil predators or the predators of their fossil prey. This is great as it actually tells us about what other species dinosaur is eating /fighting with and really helps to flesh out the bones. I liked the theory about the big carnivore slashing it's prey and then withdrawing (like a great white) to let it bleed out. Yes, interesting and fun (I watched this with my kids) and we all know it's not meant to be 100% gospel but padded out with conjecture. Looking forward to the next

I'm actually going to backpedal a little here and slightly agree with you (so much for me trying to be more controversial!) I hadn't really looked at it from the perspective of watching it with kids. While all my points on the rubbish CGI and the approach to the science/narration stand, I suspect that the 6-10 year old version of me would think this is one of the most awesome shows ever made! Its got Dinosaurs! Dinosaurs are cool!
It may be that embittered 30 somethings, inclined to complain about everything and everyone are not this shows target audience. Which is in itself a disgrace!

[Hawk_Eye]

I've come up with another annoyance
I said in my previous post that I liked the fact that they'd given many of the dinos a much more 'realistic' appearance, giving some zebra or tiger type stripes for instance rather than the uniform green or brown skin I remember their depictions having in my childhood. I still think this is a good thing, but why have they given the dinosaurs what look like 'primitive' versions of real world animal camouflage?
The Zebra skinned herbivores (I'm afraid I've forgotten their name) for instance only have the black and white stripes covering a small portion of their backs, ending half way down their flanks as though they were 'unfinished' somehow. I don't think this is how evolution works. Creatures like the zebra existing today are not 'more evolved' than the dinosaurs. The dinosaurs were around for millions of years, they would have had camouflage that was just as good as anything existing today, it wouldn't be some primitive 'half evolved' halfway house. Evolution is not a straight line series of progressions from then to now with earlier stuff being rubbish and stuff existing today being some sort of pinnacle. I think.

Well given the CGI I’m not surprised by the camouflage. I think I read somewhere that in recent excavations the rock around the fossils have “shown” the skin patterns and scientists have been able to draw dinosaurs as they may have looked.

The CGI is just way below par and I can't make myself forget it and just lose myself in the programme without being jarred out by something stupid. I agree with you on the book I'll certainly be looking out for that in my bargain book store after it comes out! The Open Uni often does short courses based on these sort of programmes too so I'll watch out for that as well.

Same for me. On the other end of the scale, I was recently given “Nature’s Great Events” on DVD and the camera footage is of such excellent quality that I miss what David Attenborough is saying in the commentary so I have to rewind to listen to it again!!

Completely agree! Though I guess it was Michael Crichton that made the decision. I can see the point that Deinonychus is more difficult to say mind you - these are actors we're dealing with! It just seems to be a symptom of Hollywood though, 'the rule of cool'. They take incredible liberties with all sorts of things from history, to science to military hardware etc, etc that drives me nuts.

See here for a bit more on what the changed to suit the film http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurassic_Park_(film)#Dinosaurs_on_screen

I'm actually going to backpedal a little here and slightly agree with you (so much for me trying to be more controversial!) I hadn't really looked at it from the perspective of watching it with kids. While all my points on the rubbish CGI and the approach to the science/narration stand, I suspect that the 6-10 year old version of me would think this is one of the most awesome shows ever made! Its got Dinosaurs! Dinosaurs are cool!
It may be that embittered 30 somethings, inclined to complain about everything and everyone are not this shows target audience. Which is in itself a disgrace!

Never thought about that myself either. Would explain a lot actually.

[Thylacine]

I've come up with another annoyance
I said in my previous post that I liked the fact that they'd given many of the dinos a much more 'realistic' appearance, giving some zebra or tiger type stripes for instance rather than the uniform green or brown skin I remember their depictions having in my childhood. I still think this is a good thing, but why have they given the dinosaurs what look like 'primitive' versions of real world animal camouflage?
The Zebra skinned herbivores (I'm afraid I've forgotten their name) for instance only have the black and white stripes covering a small portion of their backs, ending half way down their flanks as though they were 'unfinished' somehow. I don't think this is how evolution works. Creatures like the zebra existing today are not 'more evolved' than the dinosaurs. The dinosaurs were around for millions of years, they would have had camouflage that was just as good as anything existing today, it wouldn't be some primitive 'half evolved' halfway house. Evolution is not a straight line series of progressions from then to now with earlier stuff being rubbish and stuff existing today being some sort of pinnacle. I think.

Hey don't knock "half-camouflage": Just because it's partial doesn't mean it's inferior or doesn't work effectively. Just think of Okapi...Thylacine...Quagga....OK ....maybe it's a bit inferior given 2/3 of these are extinct! but it still maybe OK. Possibly half camouflage striping is more effective in really thick cover? 100% of Okapis can't be wrong.

Oh yes and Numbat too.

[cabbage]

Hey don't knock "half-camouflage": Just because it's partial doesn't mean it's inferior or doesn't work effectively. Just think of Okapi...Thylacine...Quagga....OK ....maybe it's a bit inferior given 2/3 of these are extinct! but it still maybe OK. Possibly half camouflage striping is more effective in really thick cover? 100% of Okapis can't be wrong.

Oh yes and Numbat too.

Oh I'm not knocking the 'half' camouflage thing in real life - and you've come up with some excellent examples, I love Okapi in particular, would love to see more footage of them in future BBC programmes. I don't mean that I believe zebras are further or 'better' evolved than Okapi just because their camouflage schemes differ, or seem more complete to human eyes. Obviously both species have a scheme that suits their needs in their particular environments.

I just meant that the way the dinosaurs schemes were depicted it made it look like they were wearing shoddy half completed versions of real world modern animal schemes. As though the poor, primitive dinosaurs were slowly groping towards some modern ideal. Its the whole idea, that I've come across before, that evolution is some sort of clear, directed, progressional path.

Of course by this point of viewing I was annoyed with the programme and looking to find fault and to be fair the film-makers made no such statement, I just made that inference.

That would actually make for quite an interesting programme, the 'science' behind various camouflage schemes. I've seen little bits before on how zebra's work but it would be interesting to see a predators eye view - or a preys eye view of tigers etc. I'm sure it could be done with modern CGI trickery. Though I suppose they aren't all necessarily camouflage of course, some may be for signalling, recognition, display or a combination of all three.

Perhaps Quagga were designed to stand half in the trees and half in the open whilst sunk up to their bellies in a mud hole waiting to ambush and devour passing film crews wandering along game trails? They just mistimed things and evolved their scheme a few years too early, going extinct before their BBC and Nat Geo prey became widespread.

[cabbage]

Well given the CGI I’m not surprised by the camouflage. I think I read somewhere that in recent excavations the rock around the fossils have “shown” the skin patterns and scientists have been able to draw dinosaurs as they may have looked.

Thats interesting I'll have a look for that, I've heard of feather patterns obviously but not skin. I guess they could only show texture rather than patterns or colour though?

Colour fossils thats what we need! Damm lazy paleo...paeleo... pealo... dinosaur digger uppers! Maybe they should spend less time courting Steven Speilberg and more time hunting for lost islands/mountaintops/worlds, that mokele-mbembe isn't going to find itself!

[Hawk_Eye]

Colour fossils thats what we need! Damm lazy paleo...paeleo... pealo... dinosaur digger uppers!

Maybe they should spend less time courting Steven Speilberg and more time hunting for lost islands/mountaintops/worlds, that mokele-mbembe isn't going to find itself!

He's produced a series called Terra Nova. All about going back in time to restart humanity and stop it being wasterful. The people go back 85 million years to the time of the dinosaurs.

I couldn't help chuckling while watching this weeks episode of Planet Dinosaur given what we've been discussing on here. It really has been made with families in mind. The way the big carnivore ate the dead dino was quite funny. It didn't seem to grip it at all. Head down, open mouth, place over carcass, lift head with food in mouth. Now that's a way to eat.