[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: PROJECTILE URINATION?



Tetanurae@aol.com wrote:
> 
> Or... what bothered me about Walking With Dinosaurs..
> 
> Let me start off by saying that I really did enjoy Walking With Dinosaurs,
> and it is by far one of the best specials ever made about dinosaurs.  There
> were a few things that really did anoy me.  Not the least of which was the:
>
> Muttaburrasaurus is not an iguanodontid.  But apparently it looked just like
> one.  Additionally, there are some 'carnosaurs' running around Australia,
> even though the "Allosaurus" astragulus has been shown to be probably
> coelurosaurian.

The UK (Kenneth Branagh) commentary had these "carnosaurs" as "polar
allosaurs" so there was at least some backpedalling.
 
> There was no parental care shown except in Tyrannosaurus, yet the interviews
> with paleontologists repeated again and again that since crocodiles and birds
> cared for their young it can be expected that ALL dinosaurs did too.  Even if
> that's not the case, the interviews contradict the CGI...  In my opinion the
> show could have used more demonstrations of it.

Parental care was explicitly shown by Leaellynasaura, and could be
assumed for Torosaurus.  Given that only 4 of 6 episodes dealt with
dinosaurs, and there was so much other behavior to depict, this does not
seem unreasonable.
 
> And my number one nit to pick, is that not a darned one of those dinosaurs
> had any speck of feathers.  I understand scientific conservitivism and trying
> to be accurate, but all of those coelurosaurs should have had feathers on
> them, or at least some dinofuzz.  Actually, the show was quite liberal with
> its interpretation of behaviors, such as the sentries and viscious rival
> gangs of Laealynnosaura portrayed as TRUTH, one wonders why none of the
> dinosaurs were given feathers even though feathering dinosaurs was considered
> quite a viable theory when the show was in its infancy.

If you look carefully you can see a crest of featherlike structures on
Ornitholestes...  But more importantly I suspect that one major reason
why feathers were not shown was that they were too expensive to render
with CGI.  The budget for the series was around $10 million, of which $5
million went on CGI.  Industrial Light and Magic apparently quoted the
equivalent of $90 million for the CGI - they might have been able to do
feathers.  I am sure that Tim Haines would have loved to feather his
Utahraptors if he could have, not least to differenciate them from those
Jurassic Park chaps.

At the end of the day you have to remember that the visuals were done on
a BBC budget, not a Hollywood one, and for a mass audience, not an
expert one.  Not that that excuses the Postosuchus urine.

cheers
Stephen