[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: What do you hate about dino-docs?
I remember a long time ago I saw an slide based advertisement at the
Sydney Imax Theatre saying
it was coming soon. It just showed the book cover (Raptor Silhouette
Maybe some Imax Production company has it.
Would make an interesting film - provided they didn't talk and have
lips. "Dinosaur" anyone? (sorry David!) ;-)
John Scanlon wrote:
Anthropomorphism is of course usually bogus, especially in stories for
children (the old Disney paradigm), but at least some animals do have (or
potentially have) life stories or episodes that embody real drama. These may
include: Life-or-death struggles among rivals or against predators,
courtship and parental care, other long-term recurrent interactions among
individuals, exploration of unfamiliar territory, behavioural innovation in
response to novel resources or to overcome a specific handicap (e.g.
injury), social interactions (including play) among family members, other
conspecifics, and individuals and groups of mixed-species communities.
That's already plenty to build stories around without anthropomorphizing
unduly, as long as you pick a species/community that isn't too boring. I can
only think of one example where this was really well done for dinosaurs,
Bakker's 'Raptor Red' (some people automatically hated it because it was
Bakker, but people are like that). I wonder who owns the film rights? It's
probably a good thing it wasn't filmed in the 90's, because now it could be
done with feathers!
Dr John D. Scanlon, FCD
Riversleigh Fossil Centre, Outback at Isa
19 Marian Street / PO Box 1094
Mount Isa QLD 4825
Ph: 07 4749 1555
Fax: 07 4743 6296
From: David Krentz [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: 14 November, 2007 2:42 PM
Cc: Brad McFeeters; Dinosaur
Subject: Re: What do you hate about dino-docs?
I'm curious about how many of you feel about the anthropamorphism
of dinosaurs. That is, turning them into characters who are seemingly
involved in a three act story structure, often with human motives. Is
a "relatable" animal good for science? Could we care for a baby
tyrannosaur who kills a "peaceful" anatotitan? I suppose science has
nothing to do with anthropamorhism, and it may in fact be a dirty
word, but its hard to deny the fact that public interest is generated
by such a concession. Just food for thought.
On Nov 13, 2007, at 7:43 PM, Chris Harris wrote:
Brad McFeeters wrote:
"...If feathers were too expensive to animate, why not avoid
depicting maniraptors in the show? IIRC, they were only minor
"characters" in WWD anyway..... "
Come on, how many kids would jump up and down if they had left them
These are "Raptors!", big scary things with teeth! Kids love that
stuff! How could they
leave them out.
Dino Guy Ralph wrote:
"...the result is that their sequels and
spin-offs perpetuate antiquated stereotypes of scaly coelurosaurs.""
I whole heartedly agree with you there - aside from budgetory
reasons there really is no excuse for this.
JP3 tried to do this while sticking to the original design, but for
continuity reasons they couldn't completely
cover them. Lets face it, while JP's raptors looked very good, the
science for there actual existence isn't very solid. I consider the
raptors in JP a cool movie monster rather than an actual dino.