• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Hilarious Beasts on the BBC

JamesWhitehead

JamesWhitehead

Piffle Prospector
Joined
Aug 2, 2001
Messages
14,199
If, like me, you are rather bored by dinosaurs, you might easily
overlook the latest computer-animatronic epic called Walking with
Beasts which screens tonight at 8:30pm on BBC1.

I caught last week's episode and was in stitches throughout, as,
I presume the makers were. The shows deal with the strange
creatures which lived in the periods after the dinosaurs. Though
the programmes claim all sorts of scholarly advisors, I can't help
but think they are mainly the chemical-fuelled fantasies of CGI
maniacs.

Last week's star was an evil gigantic flightless parrot called the
Gastornis. I think it may have been Streisand without make-up.
There were also some ant-eater type things which I am sure owed
more to the Clangers than fossils.

Can't wait to see what monstrosities they have dreamed up for
tonight. :D

* added 24th November. The second show was much less entertaining.
Not a Soup-dragon in sight. :(
 
Oh, I'm enjoying it . . . but they do seem overly fond of prehensile snouts on these beasts.

Carole
 
If gastornis is a chemical fueled fantasy - dont bring those chemicals anywhere near me!

I rather enjoy animatronics they are a lot more convincing than stop motion. I'm afraid the skills of Ray Harryhausen always left me cold. I remember sneaking off to see one of his films aged about 12 and had a great deal of difficulty suppressing my laughter. Mind you all his animations were better than the actors in the films.
 
I think this show makes it over here sometime next month.I'm rather anxious to see it.So much is made of dinosaurs it's rather refreshing to see something about Cenozoic animals.
 
I don't think the effects are as good as in Walking With Dinosaurs, but maybe that's bcause mammals and birds have fur and feathers which should move around with movement. I haven't noticed any of this.
 
I don't know, I thought they were pretty good- there were a few places where gravity seemed a bit weak or the movement wasn't quite right, but the one I saw still worked pretty well for me. Of course, I never saw the Dinosaurs one- perhaps this doesn't compare, but it seemed pretty enjoyable to me.
 
I like the programme but i preferred "Extinct" on channel 4. Did anyone see that?
Gastornis and giant flightless birds i like. I recently saw the fossil skull of a Phorrusrhacid- a S.american giant "terrorbird". The skull was about 4 foot long and the beak about 2 feet deep. Not something to be messed with.
I definitely prefer Beasts to dinosaurs. Something about the fact that (well for some of them) early man met, feared or hunted them makes it slightly tantalising. Maybe its just me but i saw in the Edinburgh royal museum a carved mammoth tusk with an engraving of a mammoth on it in beautiful detail- the fact that whoever had drawn the picture had seen these huge creatures in real life sent a tingle down my spine. It's sad to think that the world of today contains only a fraction of the animals that had lived say, 5000 years ago. Such a short period in geological time.
 
the effects are really cheap-looking compared to walking with dinosaurs
 
i agree they didnt look a patch on WWdino's
i thought seeing as they billed it as the next chapter in history they should have at least but a bit more effort in to it or maybe a bit more time and a lot more money into the special effects

cas
 
Walking with Beasts will be shown in North America on the Discovery Channel, Dec. 9.

For some reason they felt the need to clarify the title; it will be called Walking with Prehistoric Beasts.
 
walking with beasts

just like walking with dinosaurs this series is a pile of crap, every thing they say is presented as fact even if it is something that there could be no evidence for, the never say "we think" or it is likely that" or even "perhaps" or "maybe" . Its my opinion that the whole series should be taken with a pinch of salt as they cannot substantiat alot of what they are saying .
I object to my licence fee being used to make this rubbish and so should you!
 
Re: walking with beasts

uncle nobby said:
every thing they say is presented as fact even if it is something that there could be no evidence for, the never say "we think" or it is likely that" or even "perhaps" or "maybe"
Click to expand...

I totally agree 100%
Everything is presented as fact which you and i and the whole population of the world know that it is impossible to know. There is alot that can be told from looking at a creatures fossils etc but to know how they behaved, what colour they where and what sounds they made is almost impossible and any theorys that come up are purely guess work.

The people that make these dinosaur claims are probably the same people who identify all sea creatures that are washed up dead as baskin sharks, and the same people who said giant squids couldnt and dont exist.
 
Surely the whole point about WWDinos/Beasts is that they are an excersize in storytelling. They are stories that are consistent internally and with the external evidence. This is better than some of Hollywoods best efforts which are neither (eg Spartacus).

Sure they go too far, but hedging them round with escape clauses won't make 'em better. Deride the animation, (tho' if beasts had come first ...) but admire what it does in bringing the subject into the lives of those who normally wouldn't give a cuss. Let's also thank providence that it isn't stop motion models.

Mind you even 20 years from now we'll be looking at the animation and saying "How could we have found that realistic!" and paleontologists might be saying "well it was obvious, even then, that T.Rex was feathered!"

At which point my mind boggles :eek:
 
Yes,I thought the whole idea behind these documentaries is to try to make them look,as much as possible,like a nature documentary.Then they naturally would be spouting"facts"like the usual nature film.
 
if they restricted themselves to what they could actually prove, even just 'prove on balance', they'd have about two minutes of footage. the whole point is that these are current best guesses which don't actually contradict anything, just the same as you get in a speculative program about (say) popular astronomy or history. everyone seems strangely angry at this, as if they're somehow being made fun of: i don't see the problem.
 
The line between fact and opinion is getting so blurred that it's impossible to watch "science" programs without being force-fed someone's private version of the subject. Whatever happened to balanced debate? Couldn't the show makers say "Here's one version of what may have happened" and "Here's another". I would like to see science programs based on evidence, not ramblings of eccentric prof's.

Sorry, can't take anymore "and they hunted in packs" speculations hiding behind the label of fact. This is supposed to be science, not politics. It's all just...damned, lost all my nouns...be back later...:rolleyes:
 
The program should at the very least have a disclaimer at the beginning saying that all facts presented in this program are infact not facts but theorys opinions and guesses made by a few profs that claim to be the world leaders in this field.

We have had to deal with these types of people since science started, Darwin was ridiculed because at the time of his discoverys scientists already knew how we came to be on the earth. If you ask me Walking with Dinosaurs should be edited to tell viewers that this is what they think it was like. If we made the same program 10 years in the furture im sure that there would be radical changes to the program, your not trying to tell me that scientists have discovered everything about dinosaurs there is to know, afterall we dont even know everything about creatures that are still alive today.

If i had small kids i would be reluctant to let them watch Walking with dinosaurs because i wouldnt want them to be fed some old ignorant profs biased rubbish.
 
Good points.Unfotunately,science is just as political as most other human endeavors.Fashions and fads are just as common in science as they are in popular culture.
 
However they're taught they are going to be given suppositions and prejudices from some old Prof anyway. If they're interested they'll find the flaws soon enough, if they're not then it won't matter.

I think the 1st thing we learn when we come out of basic education is that much of what we're taught is tosh. I mean no disrespect to teachers by this, they have to begin a process that we must, ourselves, complete.

Teachers give us sufficient to survive in our knowlege based world. For example in maths we were taught "all the angles in a triangle add up to 180 degrees". The fact that this is not true in many cases harms us not at all but it would harm us if we applied it to celestial navigation.
 
the point is there shouldnt be any flaws to fined in a program presented as a factual documentary . A disclamer would have been the least I'd have expected, it would have been better if it were advertised as the sciance fiction program it more closely resembles
Just remember that no matter how idiot proof you make something some one will always make a better idiot, disclamers should be there for their benefit
 
I'll be sure to check it out,I think the Discovery Channel's running it over here Sunday night.
 
nooo dont even bother watching it, boycot it!!!!! email the bbc, tell them to stop spending british tv licence fee payers money on this fictional crap!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
What strange reactions!
What strangely negative reactions...

I haven't strayed into a Creationist Science board by mistake, have I...?

How come no-one has mentioned the "Making of..." programmes that accompany this (and other BBC) series, which demonstrate not only the techniques used, but also the scientific evidence it's based on?

I do wish whinging and sniping was not such a big part of modern society. The only claim "Walking with beasts" makes is that it is the best interpretation of the evidence currently available. May be wrong, may be right; it's just the standard we judge the next interpretation by.

Why so negative, folk?
 
the reason im negative about these programs is because all thru time we have had to listen to the views of others wither or not there is any evidence to back it up and then we are told that this is how it was and every other theory is not true. Back in the olden days most of these views where racially motivated which now im glad to say isnt the case. Now however it is a bunch of palentologists that want to make a name for themselves and they come up with a theory and pow! thats exactly how it happend no questions asked. Walking with dinosaurs presented its self as a documentary about dinosaurs and they way it was worded gave me the viewer the impression that they knew exactly what it was like and how these creatures where and how they reacted, we both know that this is impossible... for christs sakes theyre saying that maybe they had feathers now?? how do they even know what colour the feathers where? they could be colourful like a pea cock or dull like a crow .. who knows?? Oh wait i know who does.. the BBC :p

i just think these programs should warn the viewer that the program is based on the evidence that we have at this time and is not a reflection of how it really was. is that too much to ask?

im drunk also
 
TM I could be wrong on this but didn't the chinese say that some of the proto-avian fossils they've been finding have some colouration? :p
 
i like the funny? bits eg like the raptor being interviewed at the of the 1st prog wouldve been better @ the end of the 2nd prog though
 
They could have had all the dinosaurs talking to each other, there’s no evidence for it but hey when has that ever stopped the BBC before. I do not dispute that the program makers have portrayed the facts accurately the problem is that they have made many assumptions and suggested to the public that these also are facts without taking the time to point out there is no actual evidence for things like colouration, behavior, vocalization ect they are only giving us their best guesses which would hold about as much water as a sieve
 
Uncle Nobby speaks the truth IMO. There's a genaration growing up who think it's a proven fact that dinosaurs were a certain colour, some other buggers hunted in packs etc. It may not be important to most people, but to me it's niggling and unnecessary. And the commentary (by Kenneth "muppet-mouth" Branner I believe- it was a long time ago now), was infantile, anthpromorphic and unlistenable. Fortunately those with satallite could get a grown up commentary instead.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top