Re: What do you hate about dino-docs?

[David Krentz <ddkrentz@charter.net>]

  I'm curious about how many of you feel about the anthropamorphism  
of dinosaurs.  That is, turning them into characters who are seemingly  
involved in a three act story structure, often with human motives.  Is  
a "relatable" animal good for science?  Could we care for a baby  
tyrannosaur who kills a "peaceful" anatotitan?  I suppose science has  
nothing to do with anthropamorhism, and it may in fact be a dirty  
word, but its hard to deny the fact that public interest is generated  
by such a concession.  Just food for thought.

David Krentz


On Nov 13, 2007, at 7:43 PM, Chris Harris wrote:

> Brad McFeeters wrote:
>
> "...If feathers were too expensive to animate, why not avoid  
> depicting maniraptors in the show?  IIRC, they were only minor  
> "characters" in WWD anyway..... "
>
> ---------
> Come on, how many kids would jump up and down if they had left them  
> out?!
>
> These are "Raptors!", big scary things with teeth! Kids love that  
> stuff! How could they
> leave them out.
>
> -----------
>
> Dino Guy Ralph wrote:
>
> "...the result is that their sequels and
> spin-offs perpetuate antiquated stereotypes of scaly coelurosaurs.""
>
> -------
>
> I whole heartedly agree with you there - aside from budgetory  
> reasons there really is no excuse for this.
> JP3 tried to do this while sticking to the original design, but for  
> continuity reasons they couldn't completely
> cover them. Lets face it, while JP's raptors looked very good, the  
> science for there actual existence isn't very solid. I consider the  
> raptors in JP a cool movie monster rather than an actual dino.
>
> - Chris
>
> -------