Re: WWD Allosaurus Re: WWD Allosaurus

["Adam Britton" <abritton@wmi.com.au>]

I believe the whole "point" of WWD was to let the general public (and
scientists) visualise a world that is normally locked in fossils. It helps
enormously for people to understand paleontology and biology if they can
see dinosaurs behaving, interacting and generally living. For all its
scientific flaws, WWD helped to capture the public's imaginating about these
fascinating creatures, and that's the most important outcome. It's
impossible to satisfy everyone when you're trying to create a mainstream
documentary, particularly as not everyone agrees about certain theories and
pieces of conjecture. In Big Al, a lot of effort was made to visualise
events and behaviours with enough basis to make them feasible. At the end of
the day, it's still a piece of sophisticated storytelling.

I doubt the majority of people will look back on WWD as a series of flawed
theories, but rather a groundbreaking natural history program that
successfully communicated a potentially "dry" topic to a massive audience.
Look at "Life on Earth" - now somewhat out of date in places, but no less
revered even today.

Adam


----- Original Message -----
From: "Erik Omtvedt" <omtvedt@mail.com>
To: "Dinosaur Discussion" <dinosaur@usc.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2001 3:33 PM
Subject: Re: WWD Allosaurus Re: WWD Allosaurus


> I agree, they did do a better job with Big Al than WWD.
> I still don't like the fact that they pass off speculation as absolute
truth without explaining that many of these theories are infact just
theories as of yet. In a few years, when these theories may change, WWD and
everyone who has been involved might be given a dim light in the public eye.
I think it's important to stress that science is about new interpretations
and not about having some sort of omnipotent knowledge. It could really
effect the public's view of modern paleontology. Just a thought.
>
> ........................................................
> iWon.com       http://www.iwon.com     why wouldn't you?
> ........................................................
>