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

Re: FW: You know what we need? a "Walking ...

Dude, what the heck happened to your post?
It looks like your text got crossed with
a cash register display.   Urgh.
Can you fix it so I don't have to edit
it to read it?   Tanx.
? ? ? 

--- On Tue, 9/29/09, dale mcinnes 

> From: dale mcinnes <wdm1949@hotmail.com>
> Subject: FW: You know what we need? a "Walking with Dino-Birds" docu
> To: dinosaur@usc.edu
> Date: Tuesday, September 29, 2009, 1:10 AM
>  <DreamMail__143508_18678281580@smtp.fibertel.com.ar>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> People!! people!! people!! That's what happens when
> non-palaeos
> take complete control of all the marketing in our
> field.=20
> =20
> Let me put it another way. Since the late 60s'=2C for
> nearly 4
> decades now=2C space exploration has had so many sci-fi
> series
> devoted to that genre=2C they are uncountable and doing as
> strong
> as they ever have. The reason is quite simple. It is not
> just the human dra=
> ma but the fact that the producers try to push each
> new series to the edge of the current scientific envelope
> of what's possibl=
> e. And in SPACE=2C so much is unexplored  that
> Producers find themselves wi=
> th a near bottomless=2C inexhaustible supply of ideas. Each
> series on
> space exploration seems to be a FRESH and NEW approach to
> old ideas.
> =20
> Now take palaeontology. A fresh=2C new approach seems to be
> something that =
> was on the leading edge 20 YEARS AGO!! But how
> would you possibly make palaeontology FRESH and NEW??
> First=2C
> by NOT dragging out the same animals=2C the same
> scenarios=2C time
> and time again. Good grief folks!! Let it rest. We have
> what??
> 550 to 700 my of vertebrate evolution to draw upon?? Over
> 160 my of dinosau=
> r history?? The only scenarios that I can envision that
> could possibly give=
>  SPACE melodramas a real run for their
> $$$$$$=2C would be for Producers to begin a sci-fi series
> on a
> palaeontological time voyage with a "lost crew" whose
> personal
> stories would not eclipse the drama of the palaeo
> environments
> that they would find themselves involved with.=20
> =20
> Take a long term approach. Forget the bottom line. Produce
> a series that wo=
> uld create a scenario that would place the audience in a
> single STAGE of ge=
> ological time for 2-3 episodes=2C before moving on to the
> next STAGE. Explo=
> re everything we currently know of the palaeobiota of that
> STAGE and not be=
>  afraid to push the boundaries. The series at once becomes
> immensely educat=
> ional as well as dramatic. Every week night the
> audience is constantly in suspence of what is going to take
> place in the ne=
> xt STAGE. The Mesozoic alone would cover years
> (23 episodes/yr). NO MORE of this "Everything there is to
> know in verte-pal=
> aeo" in one episode. Do you ever see any series on SPACE do
> this?? It simpl=
> y shows a lack of interest/knowledge on the part of most
> Producers.
> =20
> Within each 3-episode STAGE=2C the actors would explore
> nearly
> everything we know (from flora to fauna=2C from continental
> to
> marine and aerial environments: if you were interested
> primarily
> in pterosaurs=2C each STAGE would follow their evolution
> back ----
> you would ALWAYS be interested in "catching" the next
> episode so
> as to not miss anything on the cotinuing drama with these
> aerial
> denizens).
> =20
> Such a series is best left to child actors with the
> innocence
> (?sic) that such a series deserves. Palaeo would be in
> front of
> us every evening=2C once a week=2C holding its own=2C with
> =20
> And for once. The public might actually learn about the
> true depth and plac=
> ement of time!! --dale =20