Let me be clear because i fear there is some confusion - I am not saying Prehistoric Planet has bad CGI. I am using it, aswell as WWD as examples of shows with good CGI in the 'This documentary has awful CGI' section of the video
The original WWD doesn’t have good CGI though. I understand it was made over 20 years ago but it’s still dull. Most of the creatures look weird and muddy, not much colour. The 2013 WWD MOVIE on the other hand is way better
@@vaya-dragon1998 I think you are under estimating how much CGI has changed in the last 20 years, especially for TV related media. And while perhaps the colours were dull for some of the animals (I would argue the Utahraptor still looks good today) , i think unless you were around for it actually coming onTV, its easy to not understand just how much of a land mark it was. But if you dont wanna compare it to WWD, then compare to Walking with Beasts that didnt come out too long after WWD and still has superior CGI
@@vaya-dragon1998 Very bad take. The CGI was great for the time. Was it Jurassic Park level? Of course not. But for a documentary, that kind of work is unheard of. I am utterly baffled by your opinion.
"Chased by Dinosaurs" a two part series special by BBC, also featuring Nigel Marven, also puts humans next to dinosaurs and its much more awesome than this. This new documentary is just bad.
In “chased by dinosaurs” and “chased by sea monsters” and “prehistoric park” Nigel gets chased several times by different dinosaurs, and the dinosaurs act like animals
Couldn't even shave off the extra fanciful rows of plates from that ARK stegosaur. Nope, let's just put an unaltered fantasy game asset into our scientifically accurate dinosaur documentary.
Obviously they'd think an Allosaurus would survive being crushed by a Diplodocus, they used a metal model for their experiment, a material they believed was comparable in strength to Allosaurus bones.
The most disgraceful thing this documentary did was using dinos from ARK. I can understand using premade assets due to budget constraints, but why use ARK of all things? It's the furthest thing from being paleo-accurate, the game itself also acknowledges this
It is a curious thing. In my view it demonstrates that there was a lack of knowledge from everyone involved in the editing of and creation of the episode. It seems that nobody was willing to fact check or 'art check' the assets they were using. A far move away from how shows like WWD handled it. I would seriously suggest fols watch the 'making of' WWD episode which is an hour long and highlights all the work that went into it.
@@tri-clawgaming7682 we found the store who stole the assets and then sold them to the producers. they never mentioned ark. not an excuse tho, cause the producers should have researched.
I very much agree with what you're saying in this video. Something else that you didn't mention: the title of this first episod was 'dawn of the dinosaurs', but 90% of the episode is about the biology of Diplodocus and Allosaurus. Any discussion of early dinosaurs is minimal, and almost feels like an afterthought... "Oops, we forgot about the Triassic." Given that this show supposedly tries to present recent developments in dinosaur science, this would have been a great opportunity to talk about some of the early Thyreophorans that have turned up in recent years, etc... But no.
3 ark survival models were used illegally in the episode the pteranodon can be seen in the sky in multiple shots the old stegosaurus model is in a few shots and so is the titanosaur
Wait one f**king minute. This episode is supposed to be set in the Morrison formation of the Jurassic, but Pteranodon is from the Niobara formation of the cretaceous. Did they seriously use a Pteranodon model in an episode meant to be set in the Jurassic.
From what I can tell, the entire shows CGI is actually rendered in unreal engine, and is using a pretty widely used redwood environment pack. The dinosaurs and animation ... Yeah awful. But even just the lighting, atmosphere and cinematography are quite lacking. Not sure how this show got even approved tbh, it clearly had no real budget at all
I hope so but im not certain. Now that the JW films are over, i feel like theres going to be a gradual decrease in dinosaur interest now for the next few years.
@@tri-clawgaming7682 Netflix has what looks like a very good paleo documentary series coming in the fall and the creator of Walking with Dinosaurs has another series for Universal. We have a lot of good paleo content ahead
Very odd that Susie Maidment got that wrong about Allosaurus. I recently attended a field trip to Utah with her where a large chunk of the fossils we saw were Allosaurus, which she is an expert on. I have to assume that’s a mistake with the script she was made to read.
9:41 I totally agree, even if you use gameplay from the isle or path of titans, or even just drawing and digital art like many UA-camrs use, it’s totally fine when the facts and sources are valid.
@@tri-clawgaming7682 PLEASE YOU HAVE TO, Jurassic Fight Club is one of the worst, most inaccurate, most absurd and at the same time most legendary and hilarious palaeo-documentaries, pure guilty pleasure 😂
A typical Allosaurus fragilis likely would've weighed around 1,800kg, with the largest Allosaurus specimens in general being estimated to have weighed about 3,000kg, so you were indeed correct in your statement
I would like to add that the CGI Allosaurus skull shown around 5:22 is the most hideous piece of garbage I have ever seen. And I'm not talking about the quality of the CGI, I'm talking about outrageous anatomical inaccuracies.
I get the impression that this documentary is aimed at a very young audience, which may explain the "everything lives" and lack of blood. It's a shame that some of the CGI used as some assets look like they have been taken from Ark Survival Evolved.
Honestly, with what a pinnical of a human being Stephen Fry is we should let him off with having a slip up, "March of the Dinosaurs" was brilliant after all.... But god what a slip it was
Im not exactly a dinosaur nerd, i love them but i know very little about them. Ark’s whole stolen assets thing brought me here and at this point it’s hilarious how much these people got wrong... Your video has been very entertaining so far!
Thank you dude! If you wanna find out more about dinosaurs from an educational point of view check out my 'Beyond the Park' series where i go into the real world history behind our favourite animals
I was really excited when I heard of this show, steven fry is such a legend. But when I was wathing the episode, I just could not get over how derp it was. I left it at the allosaur being stomped scene, I just couldn't be bothered anymore.
I like how they present herding dinosaurs as something new. Bro you had dinosaur herds in The land before time movies! How can a animated movie series meant for kids be more accurate than a documentary about dinosaurs?
I think they use the same set throughout the whole show, if later episodes focusing on Cretaceous animals are any indication. The biggest bummer for me is they indicated they were going to focus on Triassic animals, but then skip right to the late Jurassic, without actually showing how the dinosaurs got so big in the first place. The models of the briefly seen stegosaurs and titanosaurs are just the ARK survival evolved versions of the creatures, extra spikes and mountain backs included. Hopefully studio wildcard were compensated, but I wouldn’t be surprised if they just bought/downloaded a bunch of assets and rigged models rather than make them themselves, which would explain some of the janky moments.
Not only is the CGI incredibly awkward, the information inaccurate.. the structure of the show is also all over the place.. it's like they didn't storyboard it at all
I watched 15 mins and turned it off. Videogame graphics circa PS3 and condescending narrative. Seems to be aimed at kids but shown at primetime. I like Stephen Fry but this smacks of a paycheck for a new conservatory.
This final show is indeed awful and I can share some insights. I was tasked with creating a few of the creatures for a company in Manchester called cghero dreadful project with pretty low budgets. The models were then presumably sold to whoever then rigged and animated them. The images are shocking and totally amateur. All of the dinosaur details were there in the digital models.... They were just so badly instigated into a game engine (to save money) . So very glad that I don't get a credit for this one as I wouldn't have taken on the work if I knew how badly my work would be bastardised
I think it would be really awesome if they made a new season of prehistoric park and everybody would want it. And I have some pretty cool ideaslike so they have a dimetrodon that they saved from an Extinction event in the Permianbut it can't take captivity and something like it's sale on its back starts to collapse like collapsing dorsal fin syndrome in orcas so then they need to plan to send it back to a more stable time in the permian
The CGI seriously looks like it could be from a poorly designed PC or PS1 game from the late 90s. Stephen Fry might as well have done this in character as General Melchett. At least it would be more entertaining. 'And this is called a diplodocus. Hello, young lady. Bah!'
I thought there was something off about the CGI in this series. Also Allosaurus wouldn't be so stupid as to attack and animal over 3 times his own weight, unless he was part of a group, and they didn't even show that. If people want a documentary with people interacting with dinosaurs that is NOT Jurassic Park, I'd recommend Chased By Dinosaurs, that are bonus episodes of Walking With Dinosaurs. That's where Nigel Marvin actually travels back to those time periods and interacts with a lot of prehistoric animals. Sure it's a bit outdated today, but the CGI is well done and Nigel actually gathers some real data on the dinosaurs. Also Prehistoric Park is a definite watch.
When I watched this, I knew from the beginning that it would be really bad. I've seen indie games with better graphics than this show's cgi. And it is extremely inaccurate, no way an allo could weigh 15 tons. Btw the Isle Evrima has good graphics and good animations
At least they didn't have the sauropods chewing. They lacked molars and where strictly strip and gulp. But the Allosaur getting up after been stood on is unforgiveable. I stop watching after Episode 1.
I've seen a video showing a couple of clips set very close together. In the first clip Stephen Fry tells us that the particular dinosaur had sharp teeth specifically designed to eat meat. The second clip, from a few minutes later has him asking an expert how we know it ate meat. Seriously? Do they have a script editor?
Thank you for bringing this catastrophic mess of a show to my attention. What a grotesque cash in of a show. Fry thinks he can turn his hand to everything. It's tedious, and it disrespects palaeontology so badly. Walking With Dinosaurs (1999; my beloved) is still in a league of it's own altogether.
@@tri-clawgaming7682 And it isn't clever to laugh at something from 1999 in hindsight just saying (unless it was as bad then, as Stephen Fry's thing is now, which as we know, it was not)
Indeed. I find folks who criticise WWD nowadays to be the most blinkered people around. Ofcourse the show is out of date, its 20 years old. The science has moved on a massive amount...primarily due to the interest WWD generated.
I’ve seen better dinosaur animations done by amateur UA-camrs than what is seen in this special. Walking with Dinosaurs is over 23 years old now. Given how much computer rendering technology has improved since 1999 even the lowest budget documentaries should be able to easily surpass it. The fact that this one’s doesn’t is embarrassing
I completely agree. I have seen some stunning CGI work on here by people using freely avaliable programs. Mustard for example makes some great documentaries about engineering. WWD is 23 years old and yet i think still looks fairly ok. Some shots do look dated these days, but others still look incrediable. I don't really see how Channel 5 can argue that this is the best that they could do with their budget.
@@tri-clawgaming7682 I don’t think the CGI is the worst ever. Some Natgeo documentaries from the mid 2000s had worse CGI but for 2023 the programs animation sucks hard.
The main problem are the graphics. If they were better, Instant Hit. But the quality is so low that it reached the "too low zone". Have we gone back just in the plot or the tech too? Looks like early ~2000s animation quality.
They have the balls to release such a trash when Prehistoric Planet delivered what a quality documentary should be. I've seen more convincing videos that utilizes in-game footage than whatever this is.
I was confused at first - I didn't know it was a new programme. I couldn't square the CGI from 1999 with Stephen looking as he does now. And then the 'science' wasn't, explanations didn't and speculation was rife.
I was just channel flicking and caught 5 minutes of it - my first impression was that the CGI looked 30 years out of date, that Dr. Dean Lomax looked distinctly uncomfortable and that the scriptwriters were recycling 25 year old science and presenting it as if they had just come up with it. I was planning to go back and watch it on catch up, simply because I have to watch anything about Dinosaurs just in case I can pick one new fact out of an hour of known facts but, having watched your video, my interest has somewhat diminished. I guess it must be aimed at 6 year olds. I would much rather see Dr. Lomax presenting a serious in depth piece on Ichthyosaurs. He is wasted in this and Stephen Fry is not doing himself any favours either. Shame - When I saw this advertised it piqued my interest - big disappointment.
@@julesgosnell9791 They do. In fact one of hallmarks of one of my favourite childhood writers, Rev Audry (who wrote Thomas the Tank Engine) said that you should never talk down to children. You need to give them challenging material in order to help them learn.
When I saw the first trailer for this "Series," I was actually willing to give it the benefit of the doubt, as long as the information was up-to-date with our modern understanding, which it was not, and upon watching an episode or 2, I realized that it literally stole fantasy creatures from the video game ARK.
I can get "there are no flowers in this period" and accidentaly shooting some in a live action setting. But when it's all CGI it's not forgivable, those flowers were put in consciously. Maybe not in the spot (I don't know if they still do every square inch by hand or there are automated programs to fill a space with CGI models), but just putting the model in the choices is a stupid mistake.
Growing up with planet dinosaur, the CGI is at LEAST 3x better and all facts were updated to that time. I can understand dinosaur was on a low budget, but to get this much wrong for a broadcasted recent show 💀
We are in agreement. Its crap. I'll watch the next one out of pure curiosity to see how bad it continues to be, then I'll drop it like its a 15tonne allosaurus
5:10 Tyrannosaurus rex currently weight estimated around 9-10 tons, spinosausus weight estimated around 7.4 tons giganotosaurus weight estimated around 7.8 tons, carcharadontosaurus weight estimated around 6-7 tons the Tyrannosaurus rex was an absolute Unit(powerhouse tank) compared to others large theropods(narrower flattened and slender body)
Theres plenty of different estimations going around for weight, its a fairly difficult thing to say for sure. One thing we can say however is that Allosaurus was no where near 15 tonnes ^^
I figured it would be another relatively low effort docuseries like they had in the late 2000's, the cgi alone looked horrendous. Also, is your pfp the rock, paper, scissors from Dinosaur King Arcade?
Lol no. so our PFP icon is freely avaliable on an icon website, and we coloured it for the three memebers favourite colours, at least that was the plan. I think we will be getting a new logo soon
Shrinkwrapping in Walking With Dinosaur is kind of okay-ish, since it was not that well known how much soft tissue covered a prehistoric animal. But shrinkwrapping in a modern dino docu? Especially after the Prehistoric Planet showed that animals have fats and muscles? It's unacceptable.
And in all fairness to Walking With Dinosaurs, it was made at a time when the overwhelming majority of the inspiration materials in terms of palaeoart and palaeomedia, had been produced in the 1970's or 1980's. The 1990's Dinomania Wave, while spurred on by Jurassic Park (1993) which directly inspired Tim Haines to make what became Walking With Dinosaurs, was still initially/largely throughout, rehashing older depictions of Dinosaurs. The problem is, that once the general public have the image of how Dinosaurs are floated out to them, either out of a disinterest or failure to find out more for themselves in their own time, or an innocent faith in that reconstruction because 'scientists said so', it can be notoriously difficult to update that perception, so to speak. And by 'update', I mean, very old versions of Dinosaur portrayals will be floating around in terms of toys, pictures, artwork, sculptures, models (including but not limited to digital and clay models), textiles and all kinds of other items. The 1905 Tyrannosaurus is still widely seen in spite of it being over a century out of date. Now, yes, I must stress that if we're all just sensible about this there is nothing inherently 'wrong' with outdated reconstructions knocking around in the palaeoart landscape. If anything, it's good to have a palaeoart record, like a historical record of the various forms that were made. And I'm sure plenty of people are more than smart enough to realise that. It's not that they even have to be interested in Dinosaurs, let alone be a palaeontologist. All it requires is a baseline common sense and respect for the subject matter. Unfortunately, humanity being humanity, a _lot_ can start to go wrong with that when it comes to well-meaning folks demanding (as if it's their call?) to make Dinosaurs continue to portrayed a certain way. A classic example would be the childish revulsion so many self-proclaimed 'Dino Nerds' _TM_ had for feathered Theropods and so on. This notion that it made them 'uncool' and 'not scary anymore', taking precedence in their obviously one tracked minds. Instead of be open minded to it, there have for like 20 years been vocally resentful folks not willing to accept their beloved featherless Dinosaurs from their childhoods, could possibly have been feathered. Let's just ignore _Yutyrannus huali_ a literal 9 metre long feathered Tyrannosauroidean. Let's just ignore the mounting evidence of various Dinosaurs having some kind of plumage, especially during the Cretaceous Period. All that is apparently not important. This is when it turns into more of an argument over aesthetic styles and an over-fixation on the reconstruction itself. The reconstruction is meant to be scientifically accurate. Our biases should not play into them. If we find provable anatomical evidence for this or that integumentary structure, then that is how it should be. Regardless of whether we like it or not, that should just be how it is. Yes, how exactly that is reconstructed, and the variations on that interpretation can be argued. And no, I don't think every Dinosaur had feathers; far from it. I just think it was one of the many biological strategies that was in their evolutionary history. One of the many feathers in their caps, one might say. But people in the general public can be so enamoured with one or two old ways of seeing a Dinosaur, that it becomes something they may or may not attach and invest their personal feelings too, and nobody likes being told they are wrong. Walking With Dinosaurs (1999) got plenty wrong. All the same, we know that in the more mature way of looking at this, most of those errors became clear in hindsight. It isn't big or clever to punch down at a show from a quarter of a century ago because clearly, by now, there will be a gulf of difference between what was understood then and what we know now (or think we know, before the shifting sands of time and palaeontological knowledge make fools of us all again) Inevitably there are always going to be mistakes. How we reconstruct things is part of both palaeontological history, as incremental improvements on the past, and it should all be celebrated. People might laugh at the Crystal Palace Park Dinosaurs of the Great Exhibition. The great sculptures, so rhinoceriform, so lizard-like, of the Dinosauria known to Sir Richard Owen. Benjamin Waterhouse Hawkins' work, with Sir Richard Owen's constant guidance. It might seem quaint and laughable how of their time and outmoded those reconstructions were; already coming under serious scrutiny by the 1880's. Indeed, arguably, even by the 1870's it could have been the case that newer engraving art had moved on a fair bit from the 1850's image of Iguanodon and Megalosaurus (which were also anachronistically portrayed together, though ironically, relatives of both did coexist at different times) The thing is, there are those who just want their biases confirmed for unscientific reasons, and those whom are willing to be potentially disappointed. When science proves that this or that dinosaur was smaller than we thought it was, or when this or that dinosaur might literally be turned in a _nomen dubium_ we might lament it and be sorry about it being downgraded. But there you go. Ego and personal bias should not, to the best of human ability, read into it. But the vast majority of people don't understand the ins and outs of palaeontology. Just how it is sadly. Walking With Dinosaurs (1999) was genuinely era defining for what it was at the time. Some may arrogantly scoff at it's many errors and dubious elements, but they may not deny that it was a remarkable form of documentary drama, a landmark in the natural history programme landscape. Some flaw or other will be found in basically every palaeomedia project, and that is all part of the fun. What we have to appreciate about Walking With Dinosaurs, was it tried it's best and _went for it_ you know? It just went for it. And it earned it's place in the halls of palaeontological, palaeoart and palaeomedia history. It still resonates with many people today because of it's sincerity and artistic beauty. It has many beautiful shots, and although expensive by documentary standards, it was still made on a relative shoestring budget. This Stephen Fry thing by comparison is worthless imo. It's not doing anything creative to advance the way we portray things. Part of what makes palaeomedia important, errors and all, are the errors themselves. Sometimes we only realise something was an error, or in error, for this or that species, because xyz palaeomedia production drew more attention to it. Some species may languish in obscurity until brought back into the limelight. It's all good in the end. Yet there is an important and subtle difference between a random Dino Nerd _TM_ (like it's some kind of lifestyle lol) clinging onto out of date reconstructions because they just like them more, and simply keeping a healthy respect for every single major phase of palaeoart reconstruction in the story of this or that species. It's all valid and part of our own history. Nothing to be ashamed of. Mostly. There were and are some corkers of errors in palaeoart history, but that comes with the territory. Indignant pouting and crying over the way a particular Theropod looked, can be very annoying. People get emotionally invested and blind themselves to the palaeontological arguments, because they think something is cool. And if they just wanted to revel in an earlier reconstruction that would be fine expect there are those dumb and arrogant enough to try and 'demand' everyone else prefer that reconstruction. I often raise an eyebrow at widespread feathers for Triassic Dinosaurs for instance, but I do not mind the idea of a few of them having early feather structures aka highly evolved scales. Walking With Dinosaurs was ahead of it's time but also largely inspired by things well past their prime. There is also the fact that Framestore CFC was still struggling to animate feathers (something they got better at for Walking With Beasts 2001) Just as death is often a driving force for evolution, as part of the natural cycle of evolution, the disproven, out of date palaeoart reconstruction is the basis for better things. And it's that which helps keep the ball rolling. Again, there is nothing wrong with it, other than the confusion it can cause. At any given time a century's worth of reconstructions can be floating around in the public space in all manner of forms, and not everyone will know how to sort them out. Palaeontologists themselves can have a real headache with it. We can't always be sure. And a LOT of palaeoart can tend to be observational art copied from a few main palaeoartists e.g. Mark Witton is well-known for his digital art, and his style of reconstructing Azhdarchid Pterosaurs. However, this has led to a slew of copycats and well-meaning attempts to stylistically conform to that style. Ultimately, what matters with regards to palaeomedia like Walking With Dinosaurs (1999), is if it leaves a great legacy. I think it was remarkably successful in helping palaeontology a lot and generating more debate on certain topics. So as long as a production like that achieves some positive forward momentum, we may forgive it of inaccuracies. Some where more egregious and known to be wrong even in 1999. But all palaeomedia is a compromise between time, budget and scientific knowledge. Meanwhile, this Stephen Fry thing achieves absolutely nothing. It's just sludge. Regurgitated and erroneous in too many places, and helpful to nobody. A net negative in palaeomedia. A cash in.
@@ThePalaeontologist hence I can accept the shrinkwrapping on WWD. Also, what WWD does very well is to capture the heft and movement of the animals there. You know _Diplodocus_ and _Argentinosaurus_ are mighty heavy just by looking at the movement and how the musculature moves. While yes there are silly errors (MAGICAL _LIOPLEURODON_ comes to mind), overall in my opinion it was the peak of dino documentary of its era. Still on my top 5 list. This one, however, is just sad. It could have been better. It got Dr. Dean Lomax, for crying out loud. Even if this turned out to be only slightly better than Planet Dinosaur I would not be disappointed. But no. This is Jurassic Fight Club kind of disappointment.
It should be noted that the massive Liopleurodon was based on fragmentary fossil evidence they had discovered at the time. Besides, if you wanna see magical, lets look at the Allosaurus that survived being stamped on by a 15 ton sauropod ^^
You know a dino doc is bad when over 20-year old "Walking With Dinosaurs" and "When Dinosaurs Roamed America" still beat it in every single aspect... Even in scientific and up to date data XD
I’ll watch them all for the giggles and because I like dinosaurs. But it was terrible. Nothing in the first episode was “new” information to me, unless you count wildly inaccurate facts. Lol But like 1993 JP showed dinosaurs moving in herds. Lol it’s not new. I would say for something potentially low-budget if the intended audience is children and it gets them interested or more interested in dinosaurs that’s great. Maybe they’ll do independent research and learn more than this documentary shows.
@@tri-clawgaming7682 5:09 the Tyrannosaurus rex is the largest terrestrial predator to ever walk on earth weight estimated around 9-10 tons or probably more…
Totally agree with this video .pretty bad throughout. Stephen who I have a lot of respect for is doing a terrible job of commentary and documentary telling and I can only hope it was scripted for him .its all very awkward and I don't think he knows if it's meant for kids or adults or both !
I guess Stephen got paid well, but it's a shame as he's genuinely into natural history. He could probably have delivered some real content without the lame script. Cringe.
They also used the Titanosaur and Stegosaurus from ARK in their trailers, dunno if it was in the episode because I haven’t seen it (and have no interest in seeing it)
I do like the show even though I do admit if it wasn’t free to watch I wouldn’t be watching it and I do admit it is not accurate but it’s still entertaining. I was so confused when he said they where going to Pangea lol
Let me be clear because i fear there is some confusion - I am not saying Prehistoric Planet has bad CGI. I am using it, aswell as WWD as examples of shows with good CGI in the 'This documentary has awful CGI' section of the video
Kinda figured
The original WWD doesn’t have good CGI though. I understand it was made over 20 years ago but it’s still dull. Most of the creatures look weird and muddy, not much colour.
The 2013 WWD MOVIE on the other hand is way better
@@vaya-dragon1998 I think you are under estimating how much CGI has changed in the last 20 years, especially for TV related media. And while perhaps the colours were dull for some of the animals (I would argue the Utahraptor still looks good today) , i think unless you were around for it actually coming onTV, its easy to not understand just how much of a land mark it was. But if you dont wanna compare it to WWD, then compare to Walking with Beasts that didnt come out too long after WWD and still has superior CGI
@@vaya-dragon1998 Very bad take. The CGI was great for the time. Was it Jurassic Park level? Of course not. But for a documentary, that kind of work is unheard of. I am utterly baffled by your opinion.
Don't knock Steven Fry, MoFo
"Chased by Dinosaurs" a two part series special by BBC, also featuring Nigel Marven, also puts humans next to dinosaurs and its much more awesome than this. This new documentary is just bad.
oh yeah i know of that set of programs too, i tend to bunch it in with Walking with Dinosaurs heh
Nigel Marven's voice improves any documentary
@@cactusgamingyt9960 Agreed. I love hearing him in Prehistoric Kingdom
In “chased by dinosaurs” and “chased by sea monsters” and “prehistoric park” Nigel gets chased several times by different dinosaurs, and the dinosaurs act like animals
I genuinely feel bad for Mr.Fry,he seems like a nice guy, and he clearly has a passion for Dinosaurs and such,but the documentary isn't great.
Nice guy!? Dude, talk smack about God Almighty.
@@hellawolf people have different religions pal
@@hellawolf there’s something called an atheist
The fact that they bought stolen 3d-assets from ARK Survival Evolved (The stego scene and the titanonsaurus scene) says a lot.
And the Pteranodon. Which for some reason appears in the Morrison Formation?!
Totally. It says 'we couldnt be arsed to do any of the work'
Couldn't even shave off the extra fanciful rows of plates from that ARK stegosaur. Nope, let's just put an unaltered fantasy game asset into our scientifically accurate dinosaur documentary.
@@Ozraptor4 Yeah its pretty shocking really...
Obviously they'd think an Allosaurus would survive being crushed by a Diplodocus, they used a metal model for their experiment, a material they believed was comparable in strength to Allosaurus bones.
well im sure if allosaurus had metal ribs then maybe it could have survived being stamped
@@tri-clawgaming7682 It does seem that Channel 5's Allosaurus was in the Weapon X program.
@@jacobcox4565 Perhaps so. Either that or doctor wu has been meddling with the genes again
They literally used the pteranodon flying animation from ark for the distant pterosaurs 💀
Yeah...i suppose they thought nobody would notice
You telling me they genuinely ripped a goddamn game animation?
Seems that way yes
The most disgraceful thing this documentary did was using dinos from ARK. I can understand using premade assets due to budget constraints, but why use ARK of all things? It's the furthest thing from being paleo-accurate, the game itself also acknowledges this
It is a curious thing. In my view it demonstrates that there was a lack of knowledge from everyone involved in the editing of and creation of the episode. It seems that nobody was willing to fact check or 'art check' the assets they were using. A far move away from how shows like WWD handled it. I would seriously suggest fols watch the 'making of' WWD episode which is an hour long and highlights all the work that went into it.
@@tri-clawgaming7682 we found the store who stole the assets and then sold them to the producers. they never mentioned ark. not an excuse tho, cause the producers should have researched.
I very much agree with what you're saying in this video. Something else that you didn't mention: the title of this first episod was 'dawn of the dinosaurs', but 90% of the episode is about the biology of Diplodocus and Allosaurus. Any discussion of early dinosaurs is minimal, and almost feels like an afterthought... "Oops, we forgot about the Triassic." Given that this show supposedly tries to present recent developments in dinosaur science, this would have been a great opportunity to talk about some of the early Thyreophorans that have turned up in recent years, etc... But no.
Yeah that also annoyed me that they didnt really chat about the Triassic at all...
Monsters Ressurected: bad
Jurassic fight club: horrible
Dinosaurs with Stephen Fry: *eyes and braincells are burning*
They used Ark Titanosaurus Model in Trailer 💀
The worst part is that ARK itself has made it clear in-game that the dinos aren't meant to be accurate
Is this actually confirmed?
@@tri-clawgaming7682 Watch The Official Trailer (In Channel E.D.D.G.E)
@@tri-clawgaming7682 Someone at Studio Wildcard basically confirmed this
@@GTSE2005 Shocking...
Quite shocking that under a year ago we got prehistoric planet. Makes me wonder if this was a quick cash grab to capitalize on it's success.
Probably was
3 ark survival models were used illegally in the episode
the pteranodon can be seen in the sky in multiple shots
the old stegosaurus model is in a few shots and so is the titanosaur
Wait one f**king minute. This episode is supposed to be set in the Morrison formation of the Jurassic, but Pteranodon is from the Niobara formation of the cretaceous. Did they seriously use a Pteranodon model in an episode meant to be set in the Jurassic.
@@kade-qt1zu yes.
I can't wait for Red Raptor Writes to lose his mind over this thing
YES
From what I can tell, the entire shows CGI is actually rendered in unreal engine, and is using a pretty widely used redwood environment pack. The dinosaurs and animation ... Yeah awful. But even just the lighting, atmosphere and cinematography are quite lacking. Not sure how this show got even approved tbh, it clearly had no real budget at all
yeah i am curious to know what the cost was for the show
It does very much look real time rendered.. i couldn't believe what I was watching
Two kids smashing their dino toys together in a 'fight' is more realistic then this :^/
agreed lol
I still hold out hope that Prehistoric Planet is the start of beautiful and brilliant paleo documentaries for the decade ahead.
I hope so but im not certain. Now that the JW films are over, i feel like theres going to be a gradual decrease in dinosaur interest now for the next few years.
@@tri-clawgaming7682 I hope you're wrong
@@tri-clawgaming7682 Netflix has what looks like a very good paleo documentary series coming in the fall and the creator of Walking with Dinosaurs has another series for Universal. We have a lot of good paleo content ahead
Thats true enough. Lets hope they are better shows
Very odd that Susie Maidment got that wrong about Allosaurus. I recently attended a field trip to Utah with her where a large chunk of the fossils we saw were Allosaurus, which she is an expert on. I have to assume that’s a mistake with the script she was made to read.
perhaps they just forgot to edit in post
This isn't Dinosaur with Stephen Fry this is Ark with Stephen Fry
Haven't heard a lot about this controversy but, how many assets have they stole again?
@@gregcervantes9268 ARK titanosaur, stegosaur and pteranodon are in Episode 1.
I FUCKING CANT HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
In some episodes they used stolen models from ARK survival evolved. The stegosaurus I believe
you can also see the Titanosaur in the trailer
Also also ark Pteranodon in the bg
9:41 I totally agree, even if you use gameplay from the isle or path of titans, or even just drawing and digital art like many UA-camrs use, it’s totally fine when the facts and sources are valid.
They really should’ve just played reruns of Prehistoric Park
Well PP is an ITV product so channel 5 would have to buy the rights from ITV
I got as far as the 15 ton Allosaur...gave up, then watched Clarkson's Farm instead
Love Clarksons Farm!
The CGI looks like a modded version of jurassic world evolution on mid graphics. Well done channel 5
i think your being way too generous there lol
I saw it and thought just because animals can do something its not like they will do it every five milliseconds
Jurassic Fight Club has a rival.
i might have to go and look at this show and do a review just for fun as a lot of folks keep mentioning it
@@tri-clawgaming7682 oh it's bad. It's considered to be the worst and most inaccurate dino documentary ever but a review would be very fun!
@@tri-clawgaming7682 PLEASE YOU HAVE TO, Jurassic Fight Club is one of the worst, most inaccurate, most absurd and at the same time most legendary and hilarious palaeo-documentaries, pure guilty pleasure 😂
i particularly hate that allo skull they show to show the jaw musculature. it hurts too look at honestly
Its a fairly outdated theory too. Ive seen papers from 2003 and 2009 that argue for different mechanics so its not even up to date science
A typical Allosaurus fragilis likely would've weighed around 1,800kg, with the largest Allosaurus specimens in general being estimated to have weighed about 3,000kg, so you were indeed correct in your statement
yeah no where near the 15 tonnes eh
Even Camp Cretaceous’s dinos look more realistic than the ones in this documentary lmao
LOL ouch burn hahaha
RedRaptorWrites is gonna rip show into pieces
Can't wait xD
Absolutely, my money on this is gonna be an F or D-
I would like to add that the CGI Allosaurus skull shown around 5:22 is the most hideous piece of garbage I have ever seen. And I'm not talking about the quality of the CGI, I'm talking about outrageous anatomical inaccuracies.
yeah...it is pretty poor but again i am honestly not surprised.
It's like they made this documentary 20 years ago and just forgot to release it
lol that is one of the sickest burns ive heard for this hahah
Walking With Dinosaurs was more than 20 years ago - and still far far better.
My god...
I feel like I've been transported back to 2004 watching the Discovery Channel or Nat-Geo all over again...
i know the feeling
There was some good stuff for them Sea Monsters, when dinosaurs roamed America, and that’s it. (You may have a point, ****)
missed oportunity for Allen Grants "They do move in herds" scene
Lol i didnt wanna tempt fate and get a copyright ID from universal. Using one scene was risky enough heh
I get the impression that this documentary is aimed at a very young audience, which may explain the "everything lives" and lack of blood.
It's a shame that some of the CGI used as some assets look like they have been taken from Ark Survival Evolved.
They WERE taken from ARK lol
@@tri-clawgaming7682 Why do they look worse than Ark? At least in Ark they have a more realistic movement and better textures.
Not to mention the stock models, stock footage and especially the stolen ARK assets
I dont know much about ARK so i couldnt comment on that but yeah stealing stuff from over places is pretty cheap
Honestly, with what a pinnical of a human being Stephen Fry is we should let him off with having a slip up, "March of the Dinosaurs" was brilliant after all....
But god what a slip it was
I think the failure of this show rests solely on the shoulders of the producers
Any documentary that has the ark titanosaur model is instantly bad
Is it defo the ARK model?
I'm 99.99% sure
@@tri-clawgaming7682 100%
missed opportunity with the diplodocus "not" killing the allosaur: "Allosaurus had never seen such bullshit"
Damn...
Im not exactly a dinosaur nerd, i love them but i know very little about them. Ark’s whole stolen assets thing brought me here and at this point it’s hilarious how much these people got wrong... Your video has been very entertaining so far!
Thank you dude! If you wanna find out more about dinosaurs from an educational point of view check out my 'Beyond the Park' series where i go into the real world history behind our favourite animals
@@tri-clawgaming7682 awesome thanks!
Dinoáschimosaur (terribly unsightly lizard)
^^
I was really excited when I heard of this show, steven fry is such a legend. But when I was wathing the episode, I just could not get over how derp it was. I left it at the allosaur being stomped scene, I just couldn't be bothered anymore.
it didnt get any better after that...while i was watching for the review i could literally feel my braincells dying...
@@tri-clawgaming7682 you did it for the common good
I like how they present herding dinosaurs as something new. Bro you had dinosaur herds in The land before time movies! How can a animated movie series meant for kids be more accurate than a documentary about dinosaurs?
Its pretty shocking tbh
@@tri-clawgaming7682 also the fact that a game made for a franchise with genetically modified dinosaurs is more accurate
"They move in herds, they do move in herds."
- Dr. Alan Grant.
I think they use the same set throughout the whole show, if later episodes focusing on Cretaceous animals are any indication. The biggest bummer for me is they indicated they were going to focus on Triassic animals, but then skip right to the late Jurassic, without actually showing how the dinosaurs got so big in the first place.
The models of the briefly seen stegosaurs and titanosaurs are just the ARK survival evolved versions of the creatures, extra spikes and mountain backs included. Hopefully studio wildcard were compensated, but I wouldn’t be surprised if they just bought/downloaded a bunch of assets and rigged models rather than make them themselves, which would explain some of the janky moments.
More than likly. It stinks of being cheaply made
Not only is the CGI incredibly awkward, the information inaccurate.. the structure of the show is also all over the place.. it's like they didn't storyboard it at all
It is like they didnt have an editor ever
I watched 15 mins and turned it off. Videogame graphics circa PS3 and condescending narrative. Seems to be aimed at kids but shown at primetime. I like Stephen Fry but this smacks of a paycheck for a new conservatory.
quite possiably
This final show is indeed awful and I can share some insights. I was tasked with creating a few of the creatures for a company in Manchester called cghero dreadful project with pretty low budgets. The models were then presumably sold to whoever then rigged and animated them. The images are shocking and totally amateur. All of the dinosaur details were there in the digital models.... They were just so badly instigated into a game engine (to save money) . So very glad that I don't get a credit for this one as I wouldn't have taken on the work if I knew how badly my work would be bastardised
I do hope you dont think me harsh when i was criticising the show. I didnt expect to find someone who worked on it
@@tri-clawgaming7682 it's all good. It deserves to be pillared to death so that crap like this never gets made again. Keep up the good work
bro is being generous on this review
lol well...perhaps im mellowing in my old age
I think it would be really awesome if they made a new season of prehistoric park and everybody would want it. And I have some pretty cool ideaslike so they have a dimetrodon that they saved from an Extinction event in the Permianbut it can't take captivity and something like it's sale on its back starts to collapse like collapsing dorsal fin syndrome in orcas so then they need to plan to send it back to a more stable time in the permian
I wouldnt mind a new season of PP like that. I love that idea too of Dimetrodon having sail issues
The Dimetodon's dorsal sail is supported by bone - The Orca's dorsal fin is not. The latter can collapse, the former cannot.
This is the polar opposite of Prehistoric Planet, it has bad CGI, inaccuracies, and is just bad in general.
The CGI seriously looks like it could be from a poorly designed PC or PS1 game from the late 90s. Stephen Fry might as well have done this in character as General Melchett. At least it would be more entertaining.
'And this is called a diplodocus. Hello, young lady. Bah!'
*chuckles* it would make it more fun
Do you remember the ps1 t rex tech demo?
I thought there was something off about the CGI in this series. Also Allosaurus wouldn't be so stupid as to attack and animal over 3 times his own weight, unless he was part of a group, and they didn't even show that. If people want a documentary with people interacting with dinosaurs that is NOT Jurassic Park, I'd recommend Chased By Dinosaurs, that are bonus episodes of Walking With Dinosaurs. That's where Nigel Marvin actually travels back to those time periods and interacts with a lot of prehistoric animals. Sure it's a bit outdated today, but the CGI is well done and Nigel actually gathers some real data on the dinosaurs. Also Prehistoric Park is a definite watch.
"Actually travels back"... when did we achieve this incredible leap in chronal technology...I had no idea😉😁
They probably used the budget on Steve lol
more than likely
When I watched this, I knew from the beginning that it would be really bad. I've seen indie games with better graphics than this show's cgi. And it is extremely inaccurate, no way an allo could weigh 15 tons. Btw the Isle Evrima has good graphics and good animations
If only the Isle Evrima could optimise its graphics
@@tri-clawgaming7682 Yea that's true lol
The only thing they could do to get a big framerate upgrade would be to lower the resolution to 720p and limit pokemon and NPCs loaded in an area
LOL
😂
@@tri-clawgaming7682 and even then im not saying it would be locked 30fps lol
I'm surprised to see this channel has so few subs! The quality deserves more!
At least they didn't have the sauropods chewing. They lacked molars and where strictly strip and gulp. But the Allosaur getting up after been stood on is unforgiveable. I stop watching after Episode 1.
Yeah it was pretty bad
I’m surprised I haven’t found your channel before I definitely subbed
Thank you dude. I have an interest in Formula 1 myself ^^
How can an Adult Allosarous and Diplodocus both Weigh the same, how can that Woman call Herself an Expert 🤣🤣🤣
Fun fact: Steven Fry is the narrator from the game Little Big Planet
I did infact know this already. He has a good voice generally for stuff like that but this show was awful.
Yeah he’s getting a really bad reputation now☹️
I've seen a video showing a couple of clips set very close together. In the first clip Stephen Fry tells us that the particular dinosaur had sharp teeth specifically designed to eat meat. The second clip, from a few minutes later has him asking an expert how we know it ate meat. Seriously? Do they have a script editor?
well thats exactly what i said in my review of episode 2. It feels like they never checked or edited the script.
Thank you for bringing this catastrophic mess of a show to my attention. What a grotesque cash in of a show. Fry thinks he can turn his hand to everything. It's tedious, and it disrespects palaeontology so badly. Walking With Dinosaurs (1999; my beloved) is still in a league of it's own altogether.
completely agree, Even if some of its science is outdated, at least it gets the basics correct
@@tri-clawgaming7682 And it isn't clever to laugh at something from 1999 in hindsight just saying (unless it was as bad then, as Stephen Fry's thing is now, which as we know, it was not)
Indeed. I find folks who criticise WWD nowadays to be the most blinkered people around. Ofcourse the show is out of date, its 20 years old. The science has moved on a massive amount...primarily due to the interest WWD generated.
@@tri-clawgaming7682 Totally agree.
12:34 yep thats accurate XD
HAHAHA
I’ve seen better dinosaur animations done by amateur UA-camrs than what is seen in this special.
Walking with Dinosaurs is over 23 years old now. Given how much computer rendering technology has improved since 1999 even the lowest budget documentaries should be able to easily surpass it. The fact that this one’s doesn’t is embarrassing
I completely agree. I have seen some stunning CGI work on here by people using freely avaliable programs. Mustard for example makes some great documentaries about engineering. WWD is 23 years old and yet i think still looks fairly ok. Some shots do look dated these days, but others still look incrediable. I don't really see how Channel 5 can argue that this is the best that they could do with their budget.
@@tri-clawgaming7682 I don’t think the CGI is the worst ever. Some Natgeo documentaries from the mid 2000s had worse CGI but for 2023 the programs animation sucks hard.
Ive heard some of this models were actually stolen from ark
yeah basically proven
6:25 That also apply to ANKYLOSAURUS!
The main problem are the graphics. If they were better, Instant Hit. But the quality is so low that it reached the "too low zone". Have we gone back just in the plot or the tech too? Looks like early ~2000s animation quality.
agreed. like i said poor cgi can be forgiven if the information was correct
after the very good job prehistoric planet did to be honest we needed something bad to make fun of lol
Lol well its very easy to take the piss out of it for sure
They have the balls to release such a trash when Prehistoric Planet delivered what a quality documentary should be.
I've seen more convincing videos that utilizes in-game footage than whatever this is.
Well exactly. This is apparently using the unreal engine too...i mean...really?!
I was confused at first - I didn't know it was a new programme. I couldn't square the CGI from 1999 with Stephen looking as he does now. And then the 'science' wasn't, explanations didn't and speculation was rife.
I was just channel flicking and caught 5 minutes of it - my first impression was that the CGI looked 30 years out of date, that Dr. Dean Lomax looked distinctly uncomfortable and that the scriptwriters were recycling 25 year old science and presenting it as if they had just come up with it. I was planning to go back and watch it on catch up, simply because I have to watch anything about Dinosaurs just in case I can pick one new fact out of an hour of known facts but, having watched your video, my interest has somewhat diminished. I guess it must be aimed at 6 year olds. I would much rather see Dr. Lomax presenting a serious in depth piece on Ichthyosaurs. He is wasted in this and Stephen Fry is not doing himself any favours either. Shame - When I saw this advertised it piqued my interest - big disappointment.
yeah its really dumbed down for kids
@@tri-clawgaming7682 I think they underestimate kids :-(
@@julesgosnell9791 They do. In fact one of hallmarks of one of my favourite childhood writers, Rev Audry (who wrote Thomas the Tank Engine) said that you should never talk down to children. You need to give them challenging material in order to help them learn.
When I saw the first trailer for this "Series," I was actually willing to give it the benefit of the doubt, as long as the information was up-to-date with our modern understanding, which it was not, and upon watching an episode or 2, I realized that it literally stole fantasy creatures from the video game ARK.
lol yeah... it was a dismall disgusting failure of a show...
Is this that show that literally uses an Ark stego?
It is yes.
And the Titanosaur as well. So I sense they might get sued for using the assets!
This Documentary is So Awful than Jurassic Fight club
I can get "there are no flowers in this period" and accidentaly shooting some in a live action setting. But when it's all CGI it's not forgivable, those flowers were put in consciously. Maybe not in the spot (I don't know if they still do every square inch by hand or there are automated programs to fill a space with CGI models), but just putting the model in the choices is a stupid mistake.
I have a suspision that the scenary and setting they plonked the models into is probably a pre-made asset flip construction. I bet no one checked.
Growing up with planet dinosaur, the CGI is at LEAST 3x better and all facts were updated to that time. I can understand dinosaur was on a low budget, but to get this much wrong for a broadcasted recent show 💀
Indeed. Poor CGI can be forgiven if the science is correct
We are in agreement. Its crap. I'll watch the next one out of pure curiosity to see how bad it continues to be, then I'll drop it like its a 15tonne allosaurus
hahaha
They stole the ark titiansaur model and walking animation Wildcard Developers know about this sooo lawsuit possible.
Yeah it will be interesting to see if anything happens
They spent all their budget on Stephen Fry 💀
Yeah i do wonder how much he was paid for this
@@tri-clawgaming7682 A lot i hope!
5:10 Tyrannosaurus rex currently weight estimated around 9-10 tons, spinosausus weight estimated around 7.4 tons giganotosaurus weight estimated around 7.8 tons, carcharadontosaurus weight estimated around 6-7 tons the Tyrannosaurus rex was an absolute Unit(powerhouse tank) compared to others large theropods(narrower flattened and slender body)
Theres plenty of different estimations going around for weight, its a fairly difficult thing to say for sure. One thing we can say however is that Allosaurus was no where near 15 tonnes ^^
I figured it would be another relatively low effort docuseries like they had in the late 2000's, the cgi alone looked horrendous.
Also, is your pfp the rock, paper, scissors from Dinosaur King Arcade?
Lol no. so our PFP icon is freely avaliable on an icon website, and we coloured it for the three memebers favourite colours, at least that was the plan. I think we will be getting a new logo soon
@@tri-clawgaming7682 happy coincidence then
3:34 bruh what happened to its mouth? 😂
6:56 top 10 anime battles
lol
@@tri-clawgaming7682 It’s like one of those ‘so bad it’s funny’ type things
This is just one of the documentaries ever made. I can’t believe it!
I agree, truly one of the documentaries of all time 👍😀
@@AngryMunci5 Cruel 😂
Shrinkwrapping in Walking With Dinosaur is kind of okay-ish, since it was not that well known how much soft tissue covered a prehistoric animal. But shrinkwrapping in a modern dino docu? Especially after the Prehistoric Planet showed that animals have fats and muscles? It's unacceptable.
Agreed way to old fashioned
And in all fairness to Walking With Dinosaurs, it was made at a time when the overwhelming majority of the inspiration materials in terms of palaeoart and palaeomedia, had been produced in the 1970's or 1980's. The 1990's Dinomania Wave, while spurred on by Jurassic Park (1993) which directly inspired Tim Haines to make what became Walking With Dinosaurs, was still initially/largely throughout, rehashing older depictions of Dinosaurs.
The problem is, that once the general public have the image of how Dinosaurs are floated out to them, either out of a disinterest or failure to find out more for themselves in their own time, or an innocent faith in that reconstruction because 'scientists said so', it can be notoriously difficult to update that perception, so to speak. And by 'update', I mean, very old versions of Dinosaur portrayals will be floating around in terms of toys, pictures, artwork, sculptures, models (including but not limited to digital and clay models), textiles and all kinds of other items. The 1905 Tyrannosaurus is still widely seen in spite of it being over a century out of date.
Now, yes, I must stress that if we're all just sensible about this there is nothing inherently 'wrong' with outdated reconstructions knocking around in the palaeoart landscape. If anything, it's good to have a palaeoart record, like a historical record of the various forms that were made. And I'm sure plenty of people are more than smart enough to realise that. It's not that they even have to be interested in Dinosaurs, let alone be a palaeontologist. All it requires is a baseline common sense and respect for the subject matter.
Unfortunately, humanity being humanity, a _lot_ can start to go wrong with that when it comes to well-meaning folks demanding (as if it's their call?) to make Dinosaurs continue to portrayed a certain way. A classic example would be the childish revulsion so many self-proclaimed 'Dino Nerds' _TM_ had for feathered Theropods and so on. This notion that it made them 'uncool' and 'not scary anymore', taking precedence in their obviously one tracked minds.
Instead of be open minded to it, there have for like 20 years been vocally resentful folks not willing to accept their beloved featherless Dinosaurs from their childhoods, could possibly have been feathered. Let's just ignore _Yutyrannus huali_ a literal 9 metre long feathered Tyrannosauroidean. Let's just ignore the mounting evidence of various Dinosaurs having some kind of plumage, especially during the Cretaceous Period. All that is apparently not important. This is when it turns into more of an argument over aesthetic styles and an over-fixation on the reconstruction itself.
The reconstruction is meant to be scientifically accurate. Our biases should not play into them. If we find provable anatomical evidence for this or that integumentary structure, then that is how it should be. Regardless of whether we like it or not, that should just be how it is. Yes, how exactly that is reconstructed, and the variations on that interpretation can be argued. And no, I don't think every Dinosaur had feathers; far from it. I just think it was one of the many biological strategies that was in their evolutionary history. One of the many feathers in their caps, one might say.
But people in the general public can be so enamoured with one or two old ways of seeing a Dinosaur, that it becomes something they may or may not attach and invest their personal feelings too, and nobody likes being told they are wrong. Walking With Dinosaurs (1999) got plenty wrong. All the same, we know that in the more mature way of looking at this, most of those errors became clear in hindsight.
It isn't big or clever to punch down at a show from a quarter of a century ago because clearly, by now, there will be a gulf of difference between what was understood then and what we know now (or think we know, before the shifting sands of time and palaeontological knowledge make fools of us all again) Inevitably there are always going to be mistakes. How we reconstruct things is part of both palaeontological history, as incremental improvements on the past, and it should all be celebrated.
People might laugh at the Crystal Palace Park Dinosaurs of the Great Exhibition. The great sculptures, so rhinoceriform, so lizard-like, of the Dinosauria known to Sir Richard Owen. Benjamin Waterhouse Hawkins' work, with Sir Richard Owen's constant guidance. It might seem quaint and laughable how of their time and outmoded those reconstructions were; already coming under serious scrutiny by the 1880's. Indeed, arguably, even by the 1870's it could have been the case that newer engraving art had moved on a fair bit from the 1850's image of Iguanodon and Megalosaurus (which were also anachronistically portrayed together, though ironically, relatives of both did coexist at different times)
The thing is, there are those who just want their biases confirmed for unscientific reasons, and those whom are willing to be potentially disappointed. When science proves that this or that dinosaur was smaller than we thought it was, or when this or that dinosaur might literally be turned in a _nomen dubium_ we might lament it and be sorry about it being downgraded. But there you go. Ego and personal bias should not, to the best of human ability, read into it. But the vast majority of people don't understand the ins and outs of palaeontology. Just how it is sadly.
Walking With Dinosaurs (1999) was genuinely era defining for what it was at the time. Some may arrogantly scoff at it's many errors and dubious elements, but they may not deny that it was a remarkable form of documentary drama, a landmark in the natural history programme landscape. Some flaw or other will be found in basically every palaeomedia project, and that is all part of the fun.
What we have to appreciate about Walking With Dinosaurs, was it tried it's best and _went for it_ you know? It just went for it. And it earned it's place in the halls of palaeontological, palaeoart and palaeomedia history. It still resonates with many people today because of it's sincerity and artistic beauty. It has many beautiful shots, and although expensive by documentary standards, it was still made on a relative shoestring budget. This Stephen Fry thing by comparison is worthless imo. It's not doing anything creative to advance the way we portray things.
Part of what makes palaeomedia important, errors and all, are the errors themselves. Sometimes we only realise something was an error, or in error, for this or that species, because xyz palaeomedia production drew more attention to it. Some species may languish in obscurity until brought back into the limelight. It's all good in the end.
Yet there is an important and subtle difference between a random Dino Nerd _TM_ (like it's some kind of lifestyle lol) clinging onto out of date reconstructions because they just like them more, and simply keeping a healthy respect for every single major phase of palaeoart reconstruction in the story of this or that species. It's all valid and part of our own history. Nothing to be ashamed of. Mostly. There were and are some corkers of errors in palaeoart history, but that comes with the territory.
Indignant pouting and crying over the way a particular Theropod looked, can be very annoying. People get emotionally invested and blind themselves to the palaeontological arguments, because they think something is cool. And if they just wanted to revel in an earlier reconstruction that would be fine expect there are those dumb and arrogant enough to try and 'demand' everyone else prefer that reconstruction.
I often raise an eyebrow at widespread feathers for Triassic Dinosaurs for instance, but I do not mind the idea of a few of them having early feather structures aka highly evolved scales. Walking With Dinosaurs was ahead of it's time but also largely inspired by things well past their prime. There is also the fact that Framestore CFC was still struggling to animate feathers (something they got better at for Walking With Beasts 2001)
Just as death is often a driving force for evolution, as part of the natural cycle of evolution, the disproven, out of date palaeoart reconstruction is the basis for better things. And it's that which helps keep the ball rolling. Again, there is nothing wrong with it, other than the confusion it can cause. At any given time a century's worth of reconstructions can be floating around in the public space in all manner of forms, and not everyone will know how to sort them out. Palaeontologists themselves can have a real headache with it. We can't always be sure.
And a LOT of palaeoart can tend to be observational art copied from a few main palaeoartists e.g. Mark Witton is well-known for his digital art, and his style of reconstructing Azhdarchid Pterosaurs. However, this has led to a slew of copycats and well-meaning attempts to stylistically conform to that style.
Ultimately, what matters with regards to palaeomedia like Walking With Dinosaurs (1999), is if it leaves a great legacy. I think it was remarkably successful in helping palaeontology a lot and generating more debate on certain topics. So as long as a production like that achieves some positive forward momentum, we may forgive it of inaccuracies. Some where more egregious and known to be wrong even in 1999. But all palaeomedia is a compromise between time, budget and scientific knowledge.
Meanwhile, this Stephen Fry thing achieves absolutely nothing. It's just sludge. Regurgitated and erroneous in too many places, and helpful to nobody. A net negative in palaeomedia. A cash in.
@@ThePalaeontologist hence I can accept the shrinkwrapping on WWD. Also, what WWD does very well is to capture the heft and movement of the animals there. You know _Diplodocus_ and _Argentinosaurus_ are mighty heavy just by looking at the movement and how the musculature moves. While yes there are silly errors (MAGICAL _LIOPLEURODON_ comes to mind), overall in my opinion it was the peak of dino documentary of its era. Still on my top 5 list.
This one, however, is just sad. It could have been better. It got Dr. Dean Lomax, for crying out loud. Even if this turned out to be only slightly better than Planet Dinosaur I would not be disappointed. But no. This is Jurassic Fight Club kind of disappointment.
It should be noted that the massive Liopleurodon was based on fragmentary fossil evidence they had discovered at the time. Besides, if you wanna see magical, lets look at the Allosaurus that survived being stamped on by a 15 ton sauropod ^^
You know a dino doc is bad when over 20-year old "Walking With Dinosaurs" and "When Dinosaurs Roamed America" still beat it in every single aspect... Even in scientific and up to date data XD
This is the worst? Methinks someone has not seen Jurassic Fight Club!
Lol no i havent however i heard many stories
@@tri-clawgaming7682 jfc is bad but the cg is much better than this pile of sheeeeeet and jfc was from 2008 (i think)
@@tri-clawgaming7682 jurassic fight Club threat dinosaurs horrible
At least JFC-s CGI wasn't as horrible. And they managed not to use models from video games.
I’ll watch them all for the giggles and because I like dinosaurs. But it was terrible. Nothing in the first episode was “new” information to me, unless you count wildly inaccurate facts. Lol But like 1993 JP showed dinosaurs moving in herds. Lol it’s not new.
I would say for something potentially low-budget if the intended audience is children and it gets them interested or more interested in dinosaurs that’s great. Maybe they’ll do independent research and learn more than this documentary shows.
More likly is that it just peddles mis-information to the general population
I feel like this is a bad April Fools joke.
I do wonder if they seriously thought this was good enough
As a 16 year old who's learning paleontology, this confused me.
as a 32 year old whose been interested in paleotology for 25 years...im not surprised you were confused
@@tri-clawgaming7682 5:09 the Tyrannosaurus rex is the largest terrestrial predator to ever walk on earth weight estimated around 9-10 tons or probably more…
Didn't it use assets from Ark survival evolved?
Yup. The titanosaur is literally a mountain lol
Totally agree with this video .pretty bad throughout. Stephen who I have a lot of respect for is doing a terrible job of commentary and documentary telling and I can only hope it was scripted for him .its all very awkward and I don't think he knows if it's meant for kids or adults or both !
Yeah i dunno who this is aimed at either
I really want to see gaming beaver watch this documentary lol
I guess Stephen got paid well, but it's a shame as he's genuinely into natural history. He could probably have delivered some real content without the lame script. Cringe.
I may get some hate for saying this but…
Jurassic fight club is better than this, because at least Jurassic fight club as better animation
ive never seen it but from the images i see the cgi does look better
They also used the Titanosaur and Stegosaurus from ARK in their trailers, dunno if it was in the episode because I haven’t seen it (and have no interest in seeing it)
There were in the episodes breifly
@@tri-clawgaming7682 as soon as i seen the head of the stego i was like wait a sec wtf? You think wildcard is gonna sue?
Well its certainly questionable
@@tri-clawgaming7682 not gonna lie that would be funny this series would be known as the series sued by ark
Wait, this is already out?
Yep. Episode two is on sunday
i agree with Ian Malcom
I do like the show even though I do admit if it wasn’t free to watch I wouldn’t be watching it and I do admit it is not accurate but it’s still entertaining.
I was so confused when he said they where going to Pangea lol
Its interesting in a 'oh look at this horriable car crash' sorta way
Nah, this is the Jurassic Fight Club of 2023 confirmed💀
They lottery stole model s from ark survival they took the titano and the old ark 1 stego
At least ark is good
One down, Three to go.
dont remind me...