You know, maybe that could be a great new series:
"What we actually KNOW about dinosaurs."
Has "dinosaurs" in the title, makes people thinking they are getting
the inside scoop.
May be a 3 parter.
It would still have the wow factor and they can re-use old animation
and have paleontologists like those of you on the list explain where
things are doubtful or unknowable at the time.....
You heard it here first.
Tess Kissinger
On Jul 1, 2011, at 2:24 AM, Matt wrote:
Oops, try that again!(plain text version)
Hi, first time poster.
I'm in a bit of a unique position in that the kitty cartoon is mine
and I also work in TV as an animator, as well as painting prehistoric
animals.
I think you've hit the nail on the head, though I do want to point
out that producing anything for TV or film is hard by the simple fact
that it costs lots of money and is, in the end, a commercial product.
This results in multiple investors wanting to make sure they get a
return, and therefore, lots of fingers in the 'creative pie', and a
need for 'sensational' documentaries.
It's pretty easy to see how the scientific advisors can be a small
voice, they're not paying the bills.
There's more to it than that. The laymans' doubt over how much we can
'really know', the need for 'story', short attention spans and, to
some extent, our own high expectations and sometimes failure to
recognise that some details will never be the concern of the rest of
the world.
Matt van Rooijen
www.optimisticpainter.wordpress.com
On 1/07/2011 10:21 AM, Luis Rey wrote:
I don't think it is just a problem of 2-D or 3-D. I have seen a
progressive deterioration in the quality of the 3-D stuff...
suddenly the Jurassic Fight Club type of animation has become the
norm, and it is abysmal. The anatomical errors and over
dramatization have become so widespread (that also includes the lack
of knowledge of real animal behavior) that I'd rather have some of
the stuff that came immediately after Walking With Dinosaurs like
that little series "Dinosaur Planet" anytime...