[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Dragons on Animal Planet March 20
> <The dragons are nice (indeed, very nice, sometimes), and they tried to
> adapt them to the region (chinese woodragons look like those in chinese
> culture, etc.) but prepare to have everything you ever knew about how
> paleontologists work being upset - the science part, although they tried
> (you even get to see a cladogram of dragons if you look close enough -
> yes, they are monophyletic), was terrible. (And they can fly because of
> being filled with - well, you can guess, and guess how they spit fire.)>
> I will likely be watching this for the amusement factor, but also
> because I am genuinely interested. I have read some classic fantasy, and
> remain an avid reader of modern fantasy to this day (who hasn't read
> Tolkein or Heinlein yet?), so some of the statements about the biologies
> of dragons they indicated on the site had me intrigued and I want to see
> if they credit these people as being original conceptors for these
> effects. Dragons in Gordon R. Dickson's world have inflatable gas
> chambers, so they fly like blimbs,
This is one of the concepts they used.
> whereas Anne McCaffrey's dragons
> possess a chemical reacting substance that requires limestone and
> calcium-rich rock to create the "flame," and the descriptions of these so
> far appear to have come straight from their pages. I hope plagiarism isn't
> in the offering.
Again, their concept is almost the same.
Nope, they do not acknowledge these ideas during the movie itself (may be
in the trailer), and I don't think you can really blame them for it,
because it is a documentary and they *never* state that it is all made-up,
but keep the illusion of dragons being a fact up throughout.
Priv.-Doz. Dr. Martin BÃker
Institut fÃr Werkstoffe
Langer Kamp 8