Re: What do you hate about dino-docs?

[Jamie Stearns <stearns5@cox.net>]

This brings to mind something David Norman said in 1990 about how there's a 
possibility that in the future, people designing dinosaur reconstructions 
made for entertainment (he was referencing the animatronic dinosaurs that 
had started appearing then) might start ignoring the science behind 
dinosaurs and simply create the cool image that people want to see. Now that 
it's been 17 years since he said that, I wonder if that's what's been 
occurring.

Take dromaeosaurs as the most blatant example. Not much in the way of 
feathers, as some have pointed out, despite massive amounts of evidence to 
the contrary. Plus, there has been very little effort to discredit Jurassic 
Park misconceptions about dromaeosaurs by the latest CGI documentaries.

Also noticeable is the lack of anything involving Dilophosaurus (unless I'm 
mistaken, as I haven't seen "When Dinosaurs Roamed America" and others). 
It's almost as if the producers know Jurassic Park got it wrong, but don't 
want to "de-awesomize" the dino's image. Even when it does appear in things 
like animatronic exhibits, it's still given a set of "venom glands" and 
spits water at the visitors.

With this in mind, I'm starting to think Norman's concern was definitely 
worth considering.