This was pretty great. Literally this generation's walking with dinosaurs.

This was pretty great

Literally this generation's walking with dinosaurs. I really liked how scientifically accurate everything was, ie: t-rex with the musculature it needed to actually move. 10/10 lizard flick.

Unattended Children Pitbull Club Shirt $21.68

UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68

Unattended Children Pitbull Club Shirt $21.68

  1. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >make stupid thread shilling inaccurate series
    >no traction because nobody cares
    >have to come into your own thread to stir shit just to get it going
    >accuse others of making the thread
    What did she mean by this?

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      >she
      Thanks for affirming my gender

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      >no traction
      That's because you keep bumping your own thread roflmfao
      >reply count: 110
      poster count: 28
      The vast majority of this thread is quite literally (You) talking to (You)rself on a thread (You) made in (You)r mother's basement.

  2. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    Terminal contrarianism

  3. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    I liked it, but it really ain't that great. It lacks the grandness of WWD, which is something you can still have with scientific accuracy. The narration and background music are bland as all hell. I don't care if they're 'big names,' Zimmer's music isn't worth a shit, and old man Attenborough can't emote; the narration direction they gave him is marvel movie level, and not captivating at all. The movement and rendering of the animals is beautiful, but the interpretations (NOT to be confused with accuracy) are a mixed bag. Some animals like the Isisasaurs or the Pachys are great, but others like the T-rex are shit, and depict it's cornified-face scales in an unappealing way. I'm not even saying this in a "I want it to look like an inaccurate movie monster" way, because these aesthetics can conform to everything we scientifically know and still look good (Blue Rhino Studio T-Rex pic rel). The biggest problem though is the pacing, and how the show moves our attention from place to place, which I assume they do to make it less choreographed (for extra "realism"). It just ended up being incoherent and it takes away my feeling for the certain environments they show. The Family Guy loosely+connected place-to-place themed cutaway style of presentation is shit. All they had to do was put all the Madagascar, Asian badland, or whatever scenes into a single episode. WWD is better because it does that plus makes the couple days or a seasons in a featured ecosystem, monotony and all, feel like a story without anything being choreographed.

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      Did they update Meaty Sue's color??

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        Apparently it's a completely new sculpt. Could be Scotty, idk

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      The difference is blue Rhino has standards and they continue in the legacy of the original Jurassic Park, the designers of which were OBSESSED with trying to make the most up to date dinosaur reconstructions possible. Unfortunately, they're getting a bit too popular so they're due for a good ol' fashioned infiltration and subversion and will probably start fricking up the feet and putting chicken feathers on everything soon.

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        >subversion
        there's that word again, using it incorrectly

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          We ARE judging you for the content of your character.

          https://i.imgur.com/PJTwgsk.jpg

          Apparently it's a completely new sculpt. Could be Scotty, idk

          Nice!

          Jurassic Park was NEVER accurate, it was always awesomesaurus.

          Jurassic Park is still more accurate than most modern reconstructions of dinosaurs. Cope. Seethe. Dilate. Die early.

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            Ok, explain how it is accurate beyond "they were trying guys, they did their b-best!" Mr. Armchair Paleontologist.

            • 10 months ago
              Anonymous

              Sorry, it's your bed time.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                Thank you for conceding once again.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                Why would anyone argue with a pipulling israelite?

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                >ur a israelite if u dont agree with me >:C
                Again, thank you for conceding.

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        Jurassic Park was NEVER accurate, it was always awesomesaurus.

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/PJTwgsk.jpg

      Apparently it's a completely new sculpt. Could be Scotty, idk

      >No mammalian nostril
      >Realistic reconstruction based on actual anatomical knowledge of the species
      >No speculative bullshit
      Damn this is good. Not a fan of the orange striped tail though. Now THESE really ARE like real animals.

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        >lips and lip integument
        >fleshy reptilian gums
        >keratin arrangement over the postorbital
        >varanid eyes
        >"no speculative bullshit"
        can you just admit your main issue with speculative depictions is just your specific aesthetic not being met

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          You're a homosexual.

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            please seek employment paleoschizo, you need money to pay for your own tard handler

            • 10 months ago
              Anonymous

              You're worthless and old. have a nice day.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                least autistic dinosaur obsessed tard

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/PJTwgsk.jpg

      Apparently it's a completely new sculpt. Could be Scotty, idk

      Source on the sculpt?

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        Blue Rhino Studios. They make great, life-like stuff!

  4. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    Since this is the only thread I can currently find, here's a couple interesting facts revealed recently.
    >The mosasaur stalking the Zalmoxes at the start of "Islands" is meant to be a Prognathodon
    >There was going to be a scene revealing that some of the female Majungasaurus' injuries was because she was attacked by a Mahajangasuchus. It actually got pretty far in development with even props being made, but it was cut for time.

  5. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    give webms

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      Where are the feathers?

  6. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    watched the first season a few days ago. it was alright; not as entertaining as wwd imo. i think doing the planet earth thing of ping-ponging from location to location rather than keeping it to one setting per episode was to its detriment. they way overcorrected on the soft tissue, a lot of the dinosaurs looked straight up blubbery, like duane nash's moronic deformed kaiju

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      Jesus christ engh is an eternal edgy teenager. He needs to grow up.

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        That's not Engh moron

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          I REFUSE to believe there are two morons that draw like this. I even looked it up and I still don't believe it.

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            expand your horizons
            https://www.deviantart.com/nashd1/gallery

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      >blubbery
      Considering they weren't adapted to flight, but moving massive bodies as fast as possible, it's more likely they'd be closer to crocs and komodos in build than lanklet birds

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        Because crocodiles are built for walking speed? By the way, crocs aren't fat either. Most of what you're seeing is muscle or internal organs. They're just not as rigidly contained because they're wetland dwellers.

        https://i.imgur.com/kR6K7tM.jpg

        expand your horizons
        https://www.deviantart.com/nashd1/gallery

        I would rather not. Only a profoundly sick society would create "artists" like this. Literally looks like straight up weimar "art".

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          t. can only draw stick figures

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Only a profoundly sick society would create "artists" like this. Literally looks like straight up weimar "art".
          No, it's just what happens when people are allowed to draw whatever they want and there is an accessible means for things to be preserved arbitrarily.

          Nazis thought healthy nations only made greco roman statues and catholic murals but that was just commissioned and preserved by the rich while everything else was eventually lost.

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        at any size, moving bodies as fast as possible entails being as lean as possible. just heaping on moar muscle is mechanically inefficient. nobody in the world's strongest man competition is going to win the olympic 100m dash. if you take a look inside of a sauropod's cervical vertebra you'll see that weight-saving is the name of the game at huge sizes, and that goes as much for the exterior as it does the interior. crocs and komodos are also a poor comparison given their metabolic and locomotor dissimilarities with dinosaurs

  7. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    I preferred the upright Rex

  8. 10 months ago
    Sage

    Man, you are truly running out of ideas, huh?

  9. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    I liked it a lot. There were some parts that were eh but overall it was good
    My main issues were;
    >exact copies of modern animal behaviours pasted onto the dinosaurs, especially ones that were identical to segments from previous BBC docs
    It’s fine to take inspiration which they did plenty of times but when it’s a 1:1 copy it’s a bit jarring
    >filler segments
    some of these were clearly rushed like the rubber crocodile trying to catch a baby pterosaur
    >too short
    I know they were constrained but it was still sad to see

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      How was it too short? 5 episodes per season seems allright to me. Specially considering WWD and WWB had 6 each

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        The number of episodes was fine, it’s just that they were only 30 minutes each. I wouldn’t mind if they cut out some of the more forgettable sequences like the rafting zalmoxes or crocodile chase to make more time for better segments. I liked the length and weight of segments like the Isisaurus march a lot more

  10. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    how is it advantageous to humans if we dig up the past? shouldn't we be looking into the future and up at the stars?

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      Understanding the past is crucial for looking into the future, surely you understand that, anon?

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        explain it to me

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          Huge lizards, which I find cool, are in the past, and stuff that happens after I die, which I don't care about, is in the future.
          Simple as

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            >stuff that happens after I die
            will effect your children and your children's children. you must think of the children.

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      Humans aren't going anywhere but in the dirt. That IS the future of mankind.

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      you never know what benefits our thirst for knowledge will bring

  11. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    I would not call it 10/10 by any chance but it was pretty fun

  12. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    >10/10 lizard flick.
    i have 10/10 seeders so hopefully i get to binge this tonight!

  13. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    It's honestly not speculative enough. There's neat bits here and there but the dinosaurs themselves are as vanilla as can be. The best segments were the night Tyrannosaur hunt and wiggly arms because they got into good speculation.

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      >It's honestly not speculative enough.
      That's because 它们就像真正的动物一样.

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        >它们就像真正的动物一样
        but bigger

        it's like gravity wasn't a thing back then

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          They all had massive air sacs that developed from crocodilian-like one-way lungs and hollow lattice-like structures in their bones

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            That's been proven by computer simulations to not have been enough to hold dinosaurs upright. They're still gravity defying animals.

            • 10 months ago
              Anonymous

              Wrong. They had a higher metabolic rate from more efficient respiration and this enabled them to grow larger in combination with the lighter weight.

              The point about a genuinely subversive crypto-creationist holds true doesn’t it? The church recognizes evolution. Birdlike dinosaurs align with genesis.

              how is it advantageous to humans if we dig up the past? shouldn't we be looking into the future and up at the stars?

              Knowing what things used to be and how god shaped the present is as useful as knowing how a house is built, when it comes time to make repairs or improvements

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                >The point about a genuinely subversive crypto-creationist holds true doesn’t it? The church recognizes evolution. Birdlike dinosaurs align with genesis.
                Who the frick are you talking to?

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                you can detect paleoschizo's presence via reddit spacing and incoherent rambling. He's so autistic that this is basically his unpaid job.

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            so dinosaurs were mostly aquatic?

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        >in chinese
        Nice.

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      Watch this. I'm sure it's not as anti-scientific as you would like because every """dinosaur""" isn't covered in pink feathers, but the inaccuracy is on your level. Also it steals like 20 scenes from Jurassic Park so you can have a blast trying to gaslight everyone into thinking none of the scenes are stolen from JP and it's all original.

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        You're recommending something the opposite of "speculative" you bumbling ape. Please take your behavioral meds moron.

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          >65 is a documentary
          Lol

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            I know you have the mental fortitude of a bonobo but you have to be either incredibly bad faith or incredibly moronic to get that interpretation

            • 10 months ago
              Anonymous

              What did you think you were saying?

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      Good. Any reconstruction that is striving to be accurate should have as little speculation as possible

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        >"dinosaurs are boring, drab animals that acted like my heckin lions and tigerinos!!!"

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          >welcome to another episode of brown dinosaurs walking

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            the Jon Favreau special

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            We actually have evidence for certain pigments, I think.

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      Bro, your airsac sauropod?

  14. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    It's a soulless Planet Earth clone.

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      Fair, I understand that

      I just think that most of the stories featured were complete snoozefests. Maybe there wasn't even anything wrong with the stories themselves, but that even at parts that were supposed to be tense, the soundtrack failed to bring any excitement, it was just boring, kind of generic. There are long parts with literally nothing happening, presumably so you could check out the graphics, but that stopped wowing me after a while.
      Also, despite the graphics, I really couldn't get immersed properly because of the animation. They just don't move "like real animals" most of the time. They move too smoothly, they lack the little twitches and other small movements that would really bring them to life. Even WWD got that part right sometimes.
      Also the fact that it's set entirely in the Cretaceous. I understand that it's because there's more knowledge on animals from that period, but it gets dull at the second season. The second season also features a lot of the same dinos from the first, which just feels like a waste of screentime that could've been used to show more animals. I just wish they would do other periods is all I'm saying. Second season should've been about Jurassic IMO. The title "Prehistoric Planet" suggests that they could show all kinds of creatures from any time period, but they just limit themselves for some reason.

      I feel myself agreeing with almost your entire post despite having (and still) liking it, very good points. There was a lot of dead air when there didn’t have to be, the stories were very hit or miss, and I wholeheartedly agree on the exclusively Cretaceous setting. While I understand why they might have done it (to provide a comprehensive look at one specific and well established time period), it was disappointing knowing that other periods of Earths history that are just as interesting (Early Cretaceous, Jurassic, Triassic, Permian, Cenozoic even) would not be given the same treatment. What I will give them a pass on are the graphics: the detail and animations they were able to provide were excellent and far better than I would’ve anticipated, especially for what’s basically a nature show and not a Hollywood production. I can forgive the instances when they seem a bit unnatural and stiff given the effort being put in everywhere else, but otherwise you’re spot on.

      Most of the hate came from a literally schizophrenic christian homosexual in the vein of american evangelicalism. He thought it had something to do with moloch worship, and tried to become an amateur/armchair paleontologist to try and implicitly argue that brids did not evolve from dinosaurs in order to, in his words... subvert things.

      It worked like this
      >Fictional documentary based on long dead animals shows baby lizards being eaten
      >THIS IS CHILD SACRIFICE SATANISTS MOLOCH WORSHIP GLORIFYING DEMONS 666 MARK OF THE BEAST REVELATIONS 420:69 PREDICTED THIS!
      >Proceeds to skim paleontology textbooks and claim that every fossil to ever come out of china is fake because some shitty composite fossils were faked once, and every fossil to come out from anywhere near china, and that westerners are in on it because MUH MOLOCH WORSHIP PROVING EVOLUTION TO DESTROY GOD THE BOOK OF MARK PREDICTED THIS IN AN ALTERNATIVE GREEK TRANSLATION
      Meanwhile, us sane people AKA Catholics are watching this guy like... yeah.

      I would bet on it being the same one who bought all those ads pushing gnostic tier heresies.

      Read your post and thought it almost sounded too batshit to be true, until immediately after this post

      It's intentionally subversive.
      I want you to imagine the typical documentary on African Savannah - featuring lions, cheetahs, zebras, elephants, etc. What do they usually show? A lion hunt, cheetahs running, elephant families. Not things they do 100% of the time, but the things you want to see in a documentary about African wildlife.

      Now imagine a new documentary. "African Planet". It has all the same animals, but doing none of the usual things. cuck male lions waiting for an older lion to die, cheetahs sleeping, a male elephant in heat brutally murdering an infant elephant, and zebras fighting each other. Now, is that false in any way? Not necessarily. But it intentionally goes out of its way to subvert your expectations and try to be "not like all the other documentaries :^)". It isn't wrong, but it is trying to change your perspective about what these animals are and if it keeps doing it for long enough periods then you'll end up with people who claim things like "cheetah are kinda lazy, why are they considered fast again?" or "wow, elephants are all psychopaths".

      said verbatim exactly what you did, “subversive” and all lmao, the absolute state of this schizo, Jesus Christ

  15. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    Can someone who’s not terminally schizophrenic explain what they didn’t like about this series, or how it was bad overall? It’s not WWD-tier, but I thought it was fine, it was generally as scientifically accurate as one can be with the material thus far discovered, took some interesting risks in explaining otherwise unknown behaviors, looked fantastic and treated the entire subject matter with a degree of genuine respect and seriousness. I know lots of people here hated the “like real animals” aspect of it, and to a certain extent I can understand that, but at the end of the day that’s exactly what they actually were, so I’m not sure what the problem is as far as that’s concerned.
    I’ll note now, however, that saying it was somehow “woke” and therefore bad is complete and total bullshit, absolutely nothing in this show (yes, even feathers) leaned into or referenced 21st century American politics, and no amount of desperate coping will change that. No one watched this, turned their TV off, and decided to take it up the ass, cut their dicks off or loot their local Best Buy, that’s fricking lunacy.

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      Most of the hate came from a literally schizophrenic christian homosexual in the vein of american evangelicalism. He thought it had something to do with moloch worship, and tried to become an amateur/armchair paleontologist to try and implicitly argue that brids did not evolve from dinosaurs in order to, in his words... subvert things.

      It worked like this
      >Fictional documentary based on long dead animals shows baby lizards being eaten
      >THIS IS CHILD SACRIFICE SATANISTS MOLOCH WORSHIP GLORIFYING DEMONS 666 MARK OF THE BEAST REVELATIONS 420:69 PREDICTED THIS!
      >Proceeds to skim paleontology textbooks and claim that every fossil to ever come out of china is fake because some shitty composite fossils were faked once, and every fossil to come out from anywhere near china, and that westerners are in on it because MUH MOLOCH WORSHIP PROVING EVOLUTION TO DESTROY GOD THE BOOK OF MARK PREDICTED THIS IN AN ALTERNATIVE GREEK TRANSLATION
      Meanwhile, us sane people AKA Catholics are watching this guy like... yeah.

      I would bet on it being the same one who bought all those ads pushing gnostic tier heresies.

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Incessantly screams about everyone but her being schizophrenic
        >Literally has created an entire fictitious world by characters that don't exist she fights with every day on the internet
        Ok.

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          >fictitious
          So do I need to start saving your archived posts now?

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            Sure, maybe it will help you argue at bare minimum about shit I actually said rather than delusions you made up in your own head.

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          >she
          >her
          Paleoschizo detected

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            there's no plebbit spacing or accompanying essay, can we be sure?

            • 10 months ago
              Anonymous

              That’s the old bored paleontologist, the one who thinks he’s the smartest person in the room at all times and makes shit up on the go. He’s developed some schizophrenic tendencies of his own that everyone who disagrees or irks him even slightly is paleoschizo. The paleoschizo is the one who was seething about prehistoric planet for months after the first season finished and seems to think all paleoartists and the Chinese are out to get him. The two are equally annoying and will argue with each other endlessly

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        >"us" catholics
        Uh huh. We know what religion you belong to.

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      It's intentionally subversive.
      I want you to imagine the typical documentary on African Savannah - featuring lions, cheetahs, zebras, elephants, etc. What do they usually show? A lion hunt, cheetahs running, elephant families. Not things they do 100% of the time, but the things you want to see in a documentary about African wildlife.

      Now imagine a new documentary. "African Planet". It has all the same animals, but doing none of the usual things. Cuck male lions waiting for an older lion to die, cheetahs sleeping, a male elephant in heat brutally murdering an infant elephant, and zebras fighting each other. Now, is that false in any way? Not necessarily. But it intentionally goes out of its way to subvert your expectations and try to be "not like all the other documentaries :^)". It isn't wrong, but it is trying to change your perspective about what these animals are and if it keeps doing it for long enough periods then you'll end up with people who claim things like "cheetah are kinda lazy, why are they considered fast again?" or "wow, elephants are all psychopaths".

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        >"I want to see everything i expect and nothing new or interesting"
        Just watch the same shit on repeat then.
        "intentionally subversive... jesus christ.
        Yeah what manipulative fricks they are for wanting to show stuff beyond what every single other dinosaur documentary shows.

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          I know this will be hard for a liberal shithead to understand, but people like things that are good. They don't like things just because they're new and subversive. We all know you won't be able to understand this since in your class, this is how life operates.

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Subversive
        What is it subverting

        >Cuck male lions waiting for an older lion to die, cheetahs sleeping, a male elephant in heat brutally murdering an infant elephant, and zebras fighting each other
        This stuff has been in documentaries for literal fricking decades. It's been noted in books before we had movies. Do you know why?

        Because this statement has been a staple of western thought since before rome, anon: "Animals do not have morals, animals are not capable of moral thought, and we are infinitely better than them. Their lives are constant hedonism, evil, and suffering. Man is better than beast. To sin is to become beast, to be virtuous to to be unlike beast"

        People used to honestly believe that ALL non-human reproduction was accomplished through rape and it is unironically subverting expectations to show that it isn't.

        Prehistoric planet is quite a traditional depiction of animals as mere beasts and things of a terrible, bloody beauty. What actually happened is you were already subverted by disney tier stuff and wolfaboo "they are loving couples with families just like us" shows.

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          "Subverting" is a post-modernism term. It means to take an established narrative and flip it on its head, basically a "fair is foul and foul is fair". It isn't 'wrong' or 'false' or 'a lie', but it is an intentional misrepresentation of what is normally considered to be true with the intent of rewriting people's perceptions. Like for example the "swimming T-Rex" on the cover. It is true that T-Rex lived at a time when North America was split in half by a shallow sea. Is it plausible that T-Rex did swim on occasion? Sure. Elephants also swim in Indonesia, but how common is this for the vast majority of Asian elephants? Not common in the slightest. But the "subversion" of the swimming T-Rex is to rewrite your perception of the T-Rex as a savannah predator that targeted young hadrosaurids and transform it instead into something goofy and safe. That's what this whole "aweosaurus" insult was about, trying to say that dinosaurs shouldn't be shown hunting each other or doing things that people might want to see them doing because that views them as monsters. But lions aren't monsters, and we still like documentaries featuring lion hunts. If lions hunting isn't problematic, then why are dinosaurs hunting problematic?

          >"I want to see everything i expect and nothing new or interesting"
          Just watch the same shit on repeat then.
          "intentionally subversive... jesus christ.
          Yeah what manipulative fricks they are for wanting to show stuff beyond what every single other dinosaur documentary shows.

          You're a homosexual.

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Show a T-rex swimming
            >AAAAA FRICKING israeliteS ARE SUBVERTING DINOSAURS TO... DO SOMETHING
            I'm pretty sure they just showed a swimming T-rex because it's cool and kind of scary to communicate that not even water couldn't save you from a big hungry lizard made of teeth and muscles but whatever dude.

            Which won worries you more, T-rex is on the other side of the river and can't swim, or T-rex is on the other side of the river and can swim? moron.

            • 10 months ago
              Anonymous

              >I'm pretty sure they just showed a swimming T-rex because it's cool and kind of scary to communicate that not even water couldn't save you from a big hungry lizard made of teeth and muscles but whatever dude.
              Actually it's not the T-Rex I'd worry about.

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          So you made this thread to white knight prehistoric planet. Pathetic.

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        Now make the lions walk on two feet and cover the zebras in scales. NOW you're on the level of PP's scientific accuracy.

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        You sound like a homosexual.

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        Have you even watched any animal documentaries? I've literally seen every "intentionally subversive" thing you listed featuring modern animals, several times over.

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        So subversive just means "thing that isn't cliche/overdone"?

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      I just think that most of the stories featured were complete snoozefests. Maybe there wasn't even anything wrong with the stories themselves, but that even at parts that were supposed to be tense, the soundtrack failed to bring any excitement, it was just boring, kind of generic. There are long parts with literally nothing happening, presumably so you could check out the graphics, but that stopped wowing me after a while.
      Also, despite the graphics, I really couldn't get immersed properly because of the animation. They just don't move "like real animals" most of the time. They move too smoothly, they lack the little twitches and other small movements that would really bring them to life. Even WWD got that part right sometimes.
      Also the fact that it's set entirely in the Cretaceous. I understand that it's because there's more knowledge on animals from that period, but it gets dull at the second season. The second season also features a lot of the same dinos from the first, which just feels like a waste of screentime that could've been used to show more animals. I just wish they would do other periods is all I'm saying. Second season should've been about Jurassic IMO. The title "Prehistoric Planet" suggests that they could show all kinds of creatures from any time period, but they just limit themselves for some reason.

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      If you're not willing to hear the voices of your critics, all you'll ever know is praise.

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        If your only critic is a schizophrenic…
        A man who believes lies can not debate truth

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Can’t even give a single example of when the show got “woke”
        homosexuals like you are as insufferable, gullible and arrogant as Woketards are, you actively look for shit to get pissed about, and when you don’t find it (like in this dinosaur show) you explosively shit your pants and b***h anyway, cause there must have been a dangerhair working on it somewhere right?? It was on TV so the israelites did it right??
        Different side of the exact same coin, it’s fricking crazy to me how you morons don’t understand that.

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          The show isn't "woke". It's moronic. Now all woke shit is moronic, but a show can be moronic for other reasons and this one went up on the drawing board moronic because all the worst names in modern degenerate paleontology are behind it.

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      Too many pterodactyls, not enough pseudosuchians.

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      I don't hate the show, but I feel like I'm more critical of it than the average fan. WWD is often used as a point of comparison for very good reason. PP's formatting doesn't really do it too many favors since many segments can feel either too short, or too drawn out. In something like WWD, any given scene is exactly as long as it needs to be for the given story being told, so you can have a few shorter sections following the Torosaurus herd in an episode largely focusing on T. rex without it taking away from the focal point of the story, without feeling insignificant, and without feeling too drawn out. Scenes in PP like the ammonite showcase in Oceans really feel like they just go on for as long as a segment feels like it should last instead of how long it needs to be on screen. There's a general sense of being whipped around all over the place in terms of location, species, and even tone that having a single story instead of multiple segments would be very beneficial towards resolving. And I think the biggest effect that the lack of a general story has on the show is that it's kind of hard to do anything except "ooh" and "aah" at the spectacle of it all. It's hard to get emotionally invested in a CGI animal if it's only on screen for a few minutes. There's no sense of brutal relief when the mosasaur kills the plesiosaur the way there is in WWB when the Basilosaurus starts rampaging through the Doroudon breeding grounds, it's just a very nice looking hunting scene. There's nothing like the deaths of the Postosuchus or Liopleurodon, and don't even get me started on Ornithocheirus. Not to mention, the series is pretty bloodless and not nearly as brutal as I think it should be. I know there's all the memes of mass baby death, and I appreciate the show for not shying away from that, but there's nothing like the cynodonts eating their own young, or T. rex hatchlings bullying their sibling to death. It feels very smoothed down and sanded over.

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        The series gets a lot of praise for being up to date in terms of paleontology which is something that WWD can't claim to nearly the same degree, and this again is something I appreciate, but that only serves to make the instances where they're very clearly embellishing things stand out even more. I thought the first scene with the Velociraptor was very good, it being shown as a lone hunter scouting around for small prey, but then every other Velociraptor scene shows them as hyper intelligent pack hunters like we've been seeing Jurassic Park for the past 30 years in spite of there being no evidence for coordinated pack behavior in these animals. I'm more than willing to accept things like soft tissue structures and displays, that sort of thing is fine with me, there's a lot of artistic license to be taken there. But there's certain things that I have a harder time accepting and coordinated pack hunting is one of them, the T. rex hunt scene is guilty of this too. Also as a couple of last general criticisms, I think season 2's episodes are too short and it really does feel like a cobbled together collection of B-sides from season 1, and for being a documentary, it doesn't really have much in the way of educational value. I also have something of an issue with many of the behaviors being displayed being so 1:1 of many extant species, because I think it ends up detracting from what ends up making dinosaurs so unique and special if all they do is act like modern day animals. I understand that as far as behaviors go, we're limited on what we know for certain about dinosaurs, and filling in some of those blanks with modern day animals is necessary to some degree, but plenty of the things we do know are completely absent, like T. rex face biting. I appreciate the series for having a solid modern day portrayal of dinosaurs that aren't beholden to a lot of old tropes, but as a series itself, I just prefer WWD at the end of the day.

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Not to mention, the series is pretty bloodless and not nearly as brutal as I think it should be
        As much as I loved Prehistoric Planet, I totally agree with this. The series didn’t feel as bloody or gruesome as it should have been, especially seeing how modern animals can be super ruthless today (see komodo dragons and hyenas for some example). The part where the Pectinodon family eats the duck was a blatant example of this, as they were biting into the corpse but didn’t interact at all with it. I heard some theorize that they didn’t depict blood because it didn’t blend well with the CGI, but if WWD managed to depict bloody scenes with the technology from 1999 (+ way more technical limitations), I don’t see how PhP couldn’t. The Mosasaurus hunting scene was another case where there was no excuse to not depict blood, Planet Dinosaur in 2011 (with a way, way worse CGI than PhP) was able to show Predator X maim and destroy the plesiosaur it hunted, yet PhP couldn’t do the same with their Mosasaurus with better technology? I don’t know what to think.

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          I don't know if there's a source for this but I've heard that Jon Favreau doesn't like graphic depictions of animal violence and that's why Prehistoric Planet's relatively bloodless.

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            Jon Favreau can't do depictions of violence because blood is too vibrant of a color and that doesn't fit his aesthetic of BROWN

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            A shame if true, but welp.

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Not to mention, the series is pretty bloodless and not nearly as brutal as I think it should be
        As much as I loved Prehistoric Planet, I totally agree with this. The series didn’t feel as bloody or gruesome as it should have been, especially seeing how modern animals can be super ruthless today (see komodo dragons and hyenas for some example). The part where the Pectinodon family eats the duck was a blatant example of this, as they were biting into the corpse but didn’t interact at all with it. I heard some theorize that they didn’t depict blood because it didn’t blend well with the CGI, but if WWD managed to depict bloody scenes with the technology from 1999 (+ way more technical limitations), I don’t see how PhP couldn’t. The Mosasaurus hunting scene was another case where there was no excuse to not depict blood, Planet Dinosaur in 2011 (with a way, way worse CGI than PhP) was able to show Predator X maim and destroy the plesiosaur it hunted, yet PhP couldn’t do the same with their Mosasaurus with better technology? I don’t know what to think.

        engh, shut the frick up.

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          https://i.imgur.com/GMiqIoa.png

          Why would anyone argue with a pipulling israelite?

          This is the point where scaletard took the L

  16. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *