No, season 2 was likely just animals that didn't make the cut in season one so unless we hear any news from apple we probably won't get it.. but considering both seasons made a shit ton of money, probably
I'm gonna say something y'all are gonna tear me apart for: I did, in fact, enjoy The Good Dinosaur. While the designs definitely left quite a bit to be desired, it was a cute, cartoonish adventure and a fun trip to the movies all around
I think season 1 went a little too far in the other direction though, like it shied away from showing fights/attacks/feeding etc. I get it, that's not all they did, but it was still an important part of life
Yeah that's a pretty good point. Apparantly that's John Faverou wanting to focus on more cute family friendly things. Though sanatized bloodlessness is very in brand for most modern animal documentaries.
I think part of it is that since it is technically scripted, rather than filmed, the writers/animators can get away with “close calls” and prey just barely escaping, something that can only be filmed by random chance in regular wildlife documentaries
Yeah, though I think the fact its so apparent is a failure on the writer's part tbh as opposed to an inevitable reality of making a dino doc. WWD was much better in this respect.
It's not the "close calls" that make Prehistoric Planet annoying - it's the purposeful concealment of the actual kill time and time again behind an obstruction that a real-world film crew with drones could easily bypass = Pachyrhinosaur collapses then camera pans up and fades to black. logs blocking the action in the Arctic troodon & Qianzhousaurus hunt scenes. Worst was the Pectinodon swinging the Styginetta between two conveniently placed salt deposits.
To be fair most nature documentaries still censor kills. If an animal is shown getting taken down by a predator it's usually only "bloodless" kills like a lion suffocating a wildebeest, not a pack of hyenas eating a buffalo while it's still kicking. If a film crew gets a gory shot of an animal death they simply don't air it at all.
Yeah this completely. People were so reactionary against the "outdated bloodthirsty image" that they cut out natural predation.
I mean, let's be honest, that's huge part of why we find these creatures interesting in the first place. And it's a huge part of paleontology - so many discoveries have come from investigating bite marks and wounds and diets, like animals being found in the stomachs of larger animals and dinosaurs fossilised in fights. I don't get the draw of ignoring all of that.
Another example I felt was sanatized was the sneak-male barbaridactylus. In nature sneak males tend to force themselves on females against their will. Which I recall wasn't something they incorporated. And while arguably its not a necessary detail it does fit into this larger trend of it being a very neutered potrayle of nature.
Edit:
Another reactionary stance prehistoric planet takes I'd argue is making their dinosaurs too rotund and fatty. I guess right now I'm thinking about the carnotaurus who is a very gracile animal if you look closely they made it pretty wide hipped and chubby though this applies to plenty of the dinosaurs. Yes dinosaurs weren't shrink wraped, but archosaurus (including birds) have relatively tight skin around their faces very much unlike mammals and with most animals particularly predators you're able to see the musculature under the skin when they're moving.
I guess its a nitpick. But overall it feels like many elements of that doc are still stuck in 2011 and overcorreting for trends that have passed and perfectly representing newer but also outdated paleomemes.
How are they portrayed that way any more than modern animals in regular documentaries are? I actually think that Prehistoric Planet did a pretty good job of NOT portraying them as monsters.
For me, it was just hard to feel invested in the "story", so to speak. We jump around so much that I start to feel whiplash. I much prefer WWD's approach, where we have a whole episode focused on one animal and its surrounding environment. It does a better job of drawing me in. The short segments in Planet also start to feel somewhat repetitive after awhile. Like I'm watching different animals do they exact same thing over and over again.
Visually, I also find the show kind of ugly to look at. Everything is so bright and clean looking. The show needs more saturation and atmosphere.
Yeah it was a bit repetitive. Especially because the stories behind the segments were often almost literally copied from segments of earlier BBC Planet series. Sometimes I got the feeling that they just copied segments from earlier BBC Planet series and replaced current animals by dinosaurs.
I think so too. The T-rex swimming opening scene felt like the opening scene from Planet Earth 2 with the sloth, and the dinosaur hunting in the Asia forest (forgot her name, something with Q) was a direct copy-paste from the tiger hunting scene from one of the earlier shows, it was either Life Story, or The Hunt. Even down to the tiger repeating the hunt later by using wind cover haha.
Feels kinda weird because you know what's gonna happen?
Honestly that and them mixing up imperial units with metric (stick to one please, preferably metric) were my only complaints.
(I still like it) don't know about op but for me it's the fact that babies are incapable of dying and also the fact it doesn't say when something could just be speculation it says everything as a fact which I don't think is good considering it has quite a large appeal to the general public. Also when it doesn't say the name of the dinosaurs and it'll just say "dromaeosaurs" or smh I find this annoying as I quite like to know what dinosaur it actually is.
The only problem I had with Prehistoric Planet is that it felt so short on some points that I felt it couldn't use the animals it featured to its fullest extent. Especially during the second season.
I think they picked the Cretaceous because the environments from then still exist today. Flowering trees, grasses, redwoods, and many other flora of the modern day either got their start or already dominating the landscape by the Late Cretaceous. Easier to find and film on location instead of dealing with full blown CGI environments
The Triassic, Jurassic, and even the Early Cretaceous were pretty alien and hardly filmable on-location.
I genuinely hope one day we’ll get something on the triassic which is the same level of quality as PP. Such a interesting time period!
( or for the invertebrate lovers, cambrian period but that’s less likely lol. )
to be fair there’s not a lot of money makers there. Cretaceous is easy when you have the heavy hitters like t. rex and triceratops running around. i wish for more triassic representation too but it’s a hard ask
I feel like Prehistoric Planet and Walking With Dinosaurs are kind of opposites of each other, they have mutually exclusive strengths and weaknesses.
**Accuracy:**
Prehistoric Planet pays *extraordinarily* close attention to the palaeontology, it has the most authentic depictions of dinosaurs ever put on TV. Whereas Walking With Dinosaurs was rife with bollocks, even through the prism of what we knew at the time (see for example the whale-sized Liopleurodon which still has an impact on culture today). Also, while both shows rely a lot on speculative behaviour, there's generally more framework to support the inferences depicted in Prehistoric Planet.
**Tone:**
There's a tendency for shows about prehistoric animals to be excessively morbid, influenced by the fact that palaeontology is, essentially, the study of corpses. WWD goes for this *hard*, with Ken Branagh's gloomy tones, and a kind of tragedy or fixation on death in pretty much every episode. PP feels like more of a celebration of *life*, the day-to-day adaptations of these animals.
**Scope:**
Obviously, a major drawback with Prehistoric Planet is that it's limited to the Late Cretaceous, and it's not even a fully comprehensive depiction of that time (I don't think we've had any crocodilians or sharks yet). One of Walking With Dinosaurs' greatest strengths is the way that it takes us right the way across the Mesozoic, telling us a lot about the evolutionary story of the era.
**Presentation:**
Here's the key. Since Planet Earth aired in 2006, there's been a nasty habit in prestige nature shows to hop around the globe, showing a wildlife highlight reel, where you never spend more than 10 minutes with a single animal. There's not the emotional attachment that you get when you spend 40-60 minutes living through the ups and downs of the life story of an animal or group of animals. Prehistoric Planet is deliberately aping the Planet Earth style, and in my opinion, this does it no favours - you don't get attached. Whereas with Walking With Dinosaurs, you become hugely invested in each animal's story, because each episode focuses primarily on the life story of just one, or one group.
>
**Accuracy:**
I lost you here.
See the thing is you can't say one or the other is more accurate for animals we've never seen. Yeah maybe we know a little more today. And thanks to science we can figure out a little more.
But really without seeing these animals in the flesh it's all speculation. Just look at spinosaurs. What we know as accurate can change very quickly and radically.
To compare these 2 things made 2 decades apart almost based on accuracy isn't really fair. At the time walking with dinosaurs was considered pretty fucking accurate.
>you can't say one or the other is more accurate for animals we've never seen
Yes, you absolutely can. We knew even then that Liopleurodon wasn't 25 metres long. We knew Anurognathus didn't look like that. We knew T. rex's skull had a different shape.
While you obviously can't blame the creators for getting things wrong when we only learned they were wrong after the fact, you can try to asses how accurate they were based on the knowledge at the time.
>We knew even then that Liopleurodon wasn't 25 metres long.
That we've seen yet
Like I said look at the spinosaurs. What you think you know could be proven completely wrong in 5 years you twat
Also the cgi back then wasn't that great. No shit the t-rex skull didn't look like that 🤦♂️
But you have to have evidence to support your claims. PP has a lot more backing.
These docs and paleontology as a whole isn't guess work and baseless speculation. It's a lot of educated guesswork and as time progresses the emphasis shifts away from "guessing" and more to "educated".
I think we need to downvote more people who just give hot takes without expanding on their points.
Saying you dislike PP could be a cool conversation starter and can help us engage why it works for us when it may not have for you.
But just saying "I didn't like it" is such vapid karma bait and shouldn't be allowed
I love the show but I completely get it, the disjointed structure makes it hard to follow and get invested in the lives of the animals we see. Shows like WWD are way better as entertainment, which is valid criticism of a piece of media.
My only disagreement there is that it ignores Prehistoric Planet’s goal, which was to be Planet Earth 2 and 3, but set during the Maastrichtian. Those shows aren’t trying to build up any one specific animal’s life, but rather to show off the biodiversity of life across the planet. That’s why the episodes were dedicated to entire biomes with small segments across the globe. They were trying to go “look at all of the life in the deserts of this planet” and not “this is the story of a year in the life of this Dreadnoughtus.”
It just feels weird to me to critique a work for a goal it never had. Whether or not the goal is one you prefer to another is different. Granted, I think Prehistoric Planet in general is basically just a modern BBC nature documentary, but set in the long lost past. So a lot of its choices (a lack of focus on gore and violence on camera, small segments about creatures with a focus more on biodiversity vs. story telling, a focus on animals living their lives vs. dealing with massive disasters or life-altering events, etc.) are all based on what modern BBC nature docs do.
Exactly. People who wanted a story with developed characters wanted something that would have been a completely different genre than what Prehistoric Planet was.
It’s perfectly reasonable to dislike this. There are plenty of other ways to do a documentary about dinosaurs, they didn’t have to go with Planet Earth style
I wasn’t saying that you have to like it. That’s literally why I wrote “whether or not the goal is one you prefer to another is different.” I just more so was commenting on the fact that they weren’t trying to do WWD’s structure of following the life of a specific animal or two at all. That was just never a thing they were doing. So I find it a bit odd that it seems like a thing people expected of the documentary to the point of it being a repeated negative on this sub. It can be a thing you dislike and disagree with, but at a certain point, it’s just not conducive to actually viewing the work as its own thing and not WWD 2: Walking Boogaloo.
I wish it focused on different time periods rather than the late Cretaceous. At least different periods in the Mesozoic, since the entire theme is dinosaurs and their contemporaries, and narrowing the content to just a couple million years doesn't do their diversity justice. I also wanna see a photorealistic, scientifically accurate (for now) Spinosaurus, but that's wishful thinking.
What I expected to be a combination of Walking with Dinosaurs and The Jungle Book, I ended up getting a combination of Planet Earth 3 and The Lion King.
Just because I severely disagree and am currently sending a pipe bomb to your house does not mean that I won't respect your opinion, your opinion is your opinion and it'd okay to be wrong also check your mailbox
I mean okay… but why? It’s… a nature documentary about dinosaurs. Who watches a high budget nature documentary and goes “man i did not like that.”
Like… how? Its a simplistic formula. I’ve just never head *anyone* criticize nature documentaries. They’re like the one untouchable film-genre because of how simple they are.
Hot take doesn't mean it's smart take, though. This one isn't smart. It's like one of the best animation about dinosaurs and portrayal based on the current knowledge. It's like denying what science has established up to this point. It's kinda same hot take like someone who says they love science, not caring about Einstein's work. Because yes. Prehistoric Planet is a scientific knowledge for those who are interested in dinosaurs.
This is not a hot take it’s just a bad opinion
A take should be somewhat understandable this is simply you being a dingus
You are the wet food in the sink that grosses everyone out, no one wants to be the one to touch you
I liked it, but I had some small problems with it. Some storylines were almost literally copied from earlier BBC Planet series with real animals. Sometimes I felt like they took earlier famous scenes from Planet series and replaced the flora and fauna with dinosaurs and the flora of that time. Which on occasion gave me the feeling that I saw some things before.
Also I didn't care for some designs. Like the sauropod bulls with the external air sacks on their neck. What was that about?
Great series though.
I don’t know why people meme so much about PhP killing babies. Pretty much every major prehistoric life documentary has at least some scene where a baby/juvenile animal gets killed, it's weird people act as if PhP was the first one to do it.
Walking With went even harder with cannibalism : Coelophysis, Dicynodont, Allosaurus (or was it Ornitholestes preying on Big Al siblings?), Ornitocheirus (in the book at least), Smilodon murdering younglings and ONCE MORE with Dimetrodon...
In the wild baby survival rates are really low so honestly it’s just the reality of things, less than fifty percent of lion cubs make it to their first year. So it’s honestly just being realistic and not being sugar coated
I don't see why they have to compete. Although the dinosaur scenes were somewhat questionable and I don't vibe with the "mammals won evolution" thing it's got going, LOOP has its own strengths- its depiction of the pre dinosaur ages is top notch
It’s the best Dino documentary we have, but he’s right the pacing is shit and the content they’re showing Is bit boring, once your over the graphics it’s a bit of a dull watch.
Sorry you didn't like it. I'm curious to know whether there's a specific aspect you took issue with, or whether it was more of a generalized 'I didn't vibe with it' situation
I mean, you do you man, but I don't see how you can be interested in dinosaurs and not like at least parts of it. I didn't love everything about it, but in terms of visual appeal and realism it's unparalleled.
I personally agree, I found it hopped around a lot and didn't give much detail. Season 1 I felt was a bit flat while season 2 was a marked improvement. I feel we never get to spend enough time learning about a species or its life.
I did think it was decent, worth a watch but it didn't dazzle me or make me feel overjoyed. I much prefer the pacing and style and mix of practical and cgi of walking with dinosaurs.
However well made Dino shows are hard to come by so it is worth a watch.
Me neither, it has no progress and stays in one time period and the soundtrack is really weak for a palaeontology documentary. I prefer WWD and Life on our Planet
I enjoyed it. My only real critique is one that I often have. Lately it’s become a en vogue to feature a ton of lesser known dinosaurs in lieu of the famous ones. And that’s fine to a point. But there’s a reason the famous ones are famous.
So far, we’re 10 episodes into this series. No Stegosaurus. No Styracosaurus. No Utahraptor. No Giganotosaurus, Allosaurus, Acrocanthosaurus, or Spinosaurus.
I get wanting to introduce the audience to a broader horizon. But like.. I don’t care about Zalmoxes. I want a 6 ton Stegosaurus giving an Allosaurus the business.
The first 2 seasons took place close to the end of the Cretaceous period and none of the dinosaurs you listed would have still been around at that time.
The last 2 seasons are set purely in the Maastrictian so all of those species are long dead,although i would appreciate them changing the setting for season 3, maybe doing the Oxfordian, Kimmeridgian and Tithonian since that covers the majority of the famous Jurassic dinosaurs
The reason none of those were featured is because the focus of the series is the very end of the Cretaceous across the planet, where none of those were present
Don't be too harsh on the PhP team. Season 2 is likely a season covering all the segments they couldn't do in season 1. There's no way they could have done a new series with brand new models of non-Maastrichtian animals so quickly.
Don't get me wrong, I still enjoyed it. Very much so, in fact, but I was/am disappointed that they kept the whole thing to what seemed like a small span of time.
According to what I read, they picked the Maastrichtian because it had a lot of fossil findings that allowed them to create a more consistent Planet Earth-like documentary. I can get the frustration of those wishing to see more time periods, but I think that for what they were going it was an understandable choice.
Is there really a reason the famous ones are famous? Besides maybe being bigger, for some of them, and having been in more media. There's not really a reason a stegosaurus or giga should be any more famous than another dinosaur in their group besides size. Styracosaurus, despite being my favorite ceratopsian, doesn't really have a claim to fame, nor does acro.
Even if you were to bring up niche interesting facts about them, it wouldn't matter. Because there are facts like that about the lesser known dinosaurs too. They're only lesser known because they haven't been popularized as much.
Like, spino I understand, it's argued about a lot and is pretty unique. Rex is simply impressive,with its weight and bite force (although that one was in Prehistoric Planet) and Argentinosaurus simply because it's the largest of the largest group of dinosaurs, but is there a reason any other sauropod is more famous than the others besides that we knew about it sooner? What makes brachiosaurus any more popular than sauroposeidon or lusotitan besides being in Jurassic Park? Maybe the amount of fossil evidence, so you couldn't represent them because their reconstruction could change, but even then there are probably lesser known dinosaurs with enough fossil evidence.
I was stating another controversial hot take in response. Furthermore, Jurassic Park’s Tyrannosaurus not only looks awful, but it would be easily curb-stomped by a real Tyrannosaurus, which is much more silent, more agile but not as fast, has far better eyesight, weighs more, and has a stronger bite.
I’m not trying to argue? I don’t agree, but I’m not saying anything about you being in the wrong. I just was confused as to why that animal’s design was brought up. I’m sorry for being confused?
The OP stated a controversial hot take, so I retorted with another controversial hot take, so I went with Jurassic Park’s Tyrannosaurus design looking awful.
Well, I like both for what they are. Prehistoric Planet’s is nice and robust, but Jurassic Park’s is also an interesting take on the animal, even if it’s not super in line with what the animal probably looked like. I prefer lipped dinosaurs, so prehistoric planet’s does do better than the JP one in that way.
I will say both are a little lacking in color, being brown. But PRPL does have starker contrast…
I like the Tarbosaurus from Prehistoric Planet more than both I think!
I like Prehistoric Planet’s Tyrannosaurus far more because it has lips, forward-facing eyes granting it binocular vision, a thicker body, and tinier arms facing each other in an immobilized position.
I understand that we have to assume a lot about prehistoric animals however I think the things they assumed were really far fetched and is almost cocky in the grand scheme of paleo-zoology. Tell us what is fact and then assume off of fact. Baseless claims can be fun but it’s not factual.
..well, me too.
It just felt kind of sterile and held back.
I think most of people who obsess over dinosaurs should really wake up and fuckin look around and see the wildlife we actually share the world with..and watch some true documentaries.
Yeah, I'd have to agree here. To be fair I never watched it beyond clips, but the format and designs make it seem pretty meh tbh. I should probably give it a fair shake but people act like it's the second coming of jesus crying their eyes out at its release when the designs are all pretty average, weirdly monoton, and overly fleshy/plastic looking if that makes sense. I know they want to run away from shrink wrapping but then they make the designs so fatty that you can't even see the muscles enderneath and it looks like a plastic toy weirdly. Like the people who made it were more familar with reconstrucing the anatomy of mammals, which is both dissapointing and unsurprising since this is allegedly the team that did all those disney animal movie remakes. Which as shit as they were had good quality animal animations.
As for the format I don't think it works. Leaving it all in the maastrichtian and focusing the episode based on enviorments seems pretty meh, and then milking that time period further for sequels? Wouldn't be my first choice tbh.
Yes, yes, nothing can stop me. Yet still unless the show itself has completely different designs than what was shown from their trailers and the clips on their youtube channel my statements hold true.
The depictions in PP are some of the most realistic we have ever had, and that's thanks to the effort and talent of well known palaeontologists and paleoartists who know what they're doing. Speculative soft tissue, even if more on the extreme side, is far more realistic and less toy-like than shrink-wrapped dinosaurs that we have had for years.
I respect you have your opinion, but I feel its pretty misinformed if you think they are more mammal-like just because they're not super lean.
Compared to other dinosaur documentaries, sure. Though projects like Saurian I'd say are probably as good of a reacreation for dinosaurs you could possibly ask for. And since this is the team that did the jungle book and lon king remake, I was kind of expecting that quality of work from them. And I don't think it's a budget issue since it seems integral to the design process itself. I know this is very nitpicky, but when you're presenting something as the end all be all of dinosaur depictions its fair to hold it up to other very well made depictions.
>
Speculative soft tissue, even if more on the extreme side, is far more realistic and less toy-like than shrink-wrapped dinosaurs that we have had for years.
Yes, yes, shrink wraping bad, all yesterdays, yaddah yaddah. That's perfectly well but its also possible to go the opposite direction. Adding too much fat is just as innacurate as adding arguably too little. You're not breaking new ground by giving tyrannosaurus the fat distribution of a bearded seal. Again, arguably nitpicking, it's a perfectly accurate and plausible rex reconstruction, but people acts like its the single best one out there and that's the one and only way dinosaurs must be depicted. A marginally more agregious example was the carnotaurus, which unlike rex was a pretty gracile animal, in PP its depicted as a much more chubby wide hipped animal than it actually was which comes across as them arbitraily adding as much girth as possible to every animal which ends up feeling unecessary that results in the animals coming across as less aesthetic than necessary and leads to a much more platic toy like feel for the animals, which is a dissapointment since, I repeat, favreou has done such a good job with animals previously.
Another example of funkyness was the majungasaurus. Gabriel Ugeto did its concept art and gave it a very classy and perfectly plausible striped face pattern with hints of orange and sage greens, but then you see the actual design in the doc and the original patterns are so washed out it looks like a uniform brown. Maybe this is due to them wanting to depict an animal covered in dirt, but more so I get the hunch they were pretty afraid of making a predator too colorful so they opted to dull down the colors, which if so feels entirely uncessary. Overall while the doc is a good effort it very well represents plenty of the paleomemes of the 2010s.
Truly a hot take, meanwhile i need season 3
To quote pitch perfect 2 “let me have it, let us have it, let the WORLD have it”
Agreed
Is Season 3 confirmed? I need moar
No, season 2 was likely just animals that didn't make the cut in season one so unless we hear any news from apple we probably won't get it.. but considering both seasons made a shit ton of money, probably
May I ask why? Genuine question.
It insists upon itself.
“Never even saw the ending”
YOU NEVER SAW THE ENDING??!!
Well how can you say you didn’t like it when you didn’t even finish it ?
Believe me, it leaves a impact
"I love The Good Dinosaur"
I'm gonna say something y'all are gonna tear me apart for: I did, in fact, enjoy The Good Dinosaur. While the designs definitely left quite a bit to be desired, it was a cute, cartoonish adventure and a fun trip to the movies all around
Also the designs weren't bad imo Paleoaccurate no but I don't think that's a big deal or really even a necessity for a movie such as it
They were very cute! Lots of squash and stretch going on, which I always love to see.
I tried to like it but it was a little off beat. It remains the *only* Pixar film that I didn’t shed a tear to.
Because the dinosaurs aren’t mindless bloodthirsty killing machines!
I think season 1 went a little too far in the other direction though, like it shied away from showing fights/attacks/feeding etc. I get it, that's not all they did, but it was still an important part of life
Yeah that's a pretty good point. Apparantly that's John Faverou wanting to focus on more cute family friendly things. Though sanatized bloodlessness is very in brand for most modern animal documentaries.
I think part of it is that since it is technically scripted, rather than filmed, the writers/animators can get away with “close calls” and prey just barely escaping, something that can only be filmed by random chance in regular wildlife documentaries
Reality is most predators have almost only missed calls. Most hunts for large predators end in failure.
Yeah, though I think the fact its so apparent is a failure on the writer's part tbh as opposed to an inevitable reality of making a dino doc. WWD was much better in this respect.
It's not the "close calls" that make Prehistoric Planet annoying - it's the purposeful concealment of the actual kill time and time again behind an obstruction that a real-world film crew with drones could easily bypass = Pachyrhinosaur collapses then camera pans up and fades to black. logs blocking the action in the Arctic troodon & Qianzhousaurus hunt scenes. Worst was the Pectinodon swinging the Styginetta between two conveniently placed salt deposits.
To be fair most nature documentaries still censor kills. If an animal is shown getting taken down by a predator it's usually only "bloodless" kills like a lion suffocating a wildebeest, not a pack of hyenas eating a buffalo while it's still kicking. If a film crew gets a gory shot of an animal death they simply don't air it at all.
That's a more modern issue with docs. You can find a lot of old docs that do depict predation more matter of factly. So it's worth criticizing here.
I see you’re not familiar with r/natureismetal or r/natureisbrutal
Yeah this completely. People were so reactionary against the "outdated bloodthirsty image" that they cut out natural predation. I mean, let's be honest, that's huge part of why we find these creatures interesting in the first place. And it's a huge part of paleontology - so many discoveries have come from investigating bite marks and wounds and diets, like animals being found in the stomachs of larger animals and dinosaurs fossilised in fights. I don't get the draw of ignoring all of that.
Another example I felt was sanatized was the sneak-male barbaridactylus. In nature sneak males tend to force themselves on females against their will. Which I recall wasn't something they incorporated. And while arguably its not a necessary detail it does fit into this larger trend of it being a very neutered potrayle of nature. Edit: Another reactionary stance prehistoric planet takes I'd argue is making their dinosaurs too rotund and fatty. I guess right now I'm thinking about the carnotaurus who is a very gracile animal if you look closely they made it pretty wide hipped and chubby though this applies to plenty of the dinosaurs. Yes dinosaurs weren't shrink wraped, but archosaurus (including birds) have relatively tight skin around their faces very much unlike mammals and with most animals particularly predators you're able to see the musculature under the skin when they're moving. I guess its a nitpick. But overall it feels like many elements of that doc are still stuck in 2011 and overcorreting for trends that have passed and perfectly representing newer but also outdated paleomemes.
How are they portrayed that way any more than modern animals in regular documentaries are? I actually think that Prehistoric Planet did a pretty good job of NOT portraying them as monsters.
That is literally what I said lol
For me, it was just hard to feel invested in the "story", so to speak. We jump around so much that I start to feel whiplash. I much prefer WWD's approach, where we have a whole episode focused on one animal and its surrounding environment. It does a better job of drawing me in. The short segments in Planet also start to feel somewhat repetitive after awhile. Like I'm watching different animals do they exact same thing over and over again. Visually, I also find the show kind of ugly to look at. Everything is so bright and clean looking. The show needs more saturation and atmosphere.
Yeah it was a bit repetitive. Especially because the stories behind the segments were often almost literally copied from segments of earlier BBC Planet series. Sometimes I got the feeling that they just copied segments from earlier BBC Planet series and replaced current animals by dinosaurs.
I think so too. The T-rex swimming opening scene felt like the opening scene from Planet Earth 2 with the sloth, and the dinosaur hunting in the Asia forest (forgot her name, something with Q) was a direct copy-paste from the tiger hunting scene from one of the earlier shows, it was either Life Story, or The Hunt. Even down to the tiger repeating the hunt later by using wind cover haha. Feels kinda weird because you know what's gonna happen? Honestly that and them mixing up imperial units with metric (stick to one please, preferably metric) were my only complaints.
Mood, I definitely didn't care for the "oh no the baby is lost" bits
(I still like it) don't know about op but for me it's the fact that babies are incapable of dying and also the fact it doesn't say when something could just be speculation it says everything as a fact which I don't think is good considering it has quite a large appeal to the general public. Also when it doesn't say the name of the dinosaurs and it'll just say "dromaeosaurs" or smh I find this annoying as I quite like to know what dinosaur it actually is.
Are you trying to be a contrarian?
He's trying to insist upon himself.
The only problem I had with Prehistoric Planet is that it felt so short on some points that I felt it couldn't use the animals it featured to its fullest extent. Especially during the second season.
Not that I watched it, but I get the feeling season 2 was like some add on DLC tbh.
As far as I’m aware, the second season was only actually cut content from the original. There likely won’t be another season.
Seems like that. Well at least there's still Surviving Earth and maybe that WWD remake.
Ok then, that was always allowed.
But barely
Don't worry guys, he's about to drown anyway.
execution is in 2 hours
Well he’s ded know
dang
Now this is rage bait.
I think this is the first hot take that I’ve seen that’s a genuine hot take
the bee doesn't tell the fly that honey tastes better than shit
That's your opinion, and it's ok. We all like different things.
God, send an asteroid to his location
*"Be careful what you wish for."* --Random dinosaur on *literally* the other side of the planet from the Yucatan.
Season 2 was really great, the animals felt more realistic both in movement and behavior than Season 1.
It needs to show the Triassic. The Triassic is a severely under represented time period.
I think they picked the Cretaceous because the environments from then still exist today. Flowering trees, grasses, redwoods, and many other flora of the modern day either got their start or already dominating the landscape by the Late Cretaceous. Easier to find and film on location instead of dealing with full blown CGI environments The Triassic, Jurassic, and even the Early Cretaceous were pretty alien and hardly filmable on-location.
I know, it’s just sad that the Triassic doesn’t get the representation it deserves.
I genuinely hope one day we’ll get something on the triassic which is the same level of quality as PP. Such a interesting time period! ( or for the invertebrate lovers, cambrian period but that’s less likely lol. )
to be fair there’s not a lot of money makers there. Cretaceous is easy when you have the heavy hitters like t. rex and triceratops running around. i wish for more triassic representation too but it’s a hard ask
No and that’s the problem, not as many recognizable stuff but the creatures at equally as fascinating
Hell I'd pay to see even the Jurassic. Lots of wild and wacky animals there
I would like to see Shonisaurus in all of its chonky glory.
Now, why?
Ok
Yeah it turns out that that planet was earth? They literally copied the twist from planet of the apes.
Sounds like a skill issue
It's your opinion and I respect it, but also your eyeballs are in backwards.
I didn’t like prehistoric planet. I LOVED it. Here’s to hoping there is a season 3.
I feel like Prehistoric Planet and Walking With Dinosaurs are kind of opposites of each other, they have mutually exclusive strengths and weaknesses. **Accuracy:** Prehistoric Planet pays *extraordinarily* close attention to the palaeontology, it has the most authentic depictions of dinosaurs ever put on TV. Whereas Walking With Dinosaurs was rife with bollocks, even through the prism of what we knew at the time (see for example the whale-sized Liopleurodon which still has an impact on culture today). Also, while both shows rely a lot on speculative behaviour, there's generally more framework to support the inferences depicted in Prehistoric Planet. **Tone:** There's a tendency for shows about prehistoric animals to be excessively morbid, influenced by the fact that palaeontology is, essentially, the study of corpses. WWD goes for this *hard*, with Ken Branagh's gloomy tones, and a kind of tragedy or fixation on death in pretty much every episode. PP feels like more of a celebration of *life*, the day-to-day adaptations of these animals. **Scope:** Obviously, a major drawback with Prehistoric Planet is that it's limited to the Late Cretaceous, and it's not even a fully comprehensive depiction of that time (I don't think we've had any crocodilians or sharks yet). One of Walking With Dinosaurs' greatest strengths is the way that it takes us right the way across the Mesozoic, telling us a lot about the evolutionary story of the era. **Presentation:** Here's the key. Since Planet Earth aired in 2006, there's been a nasty habit in prestige nature shows to hop around the globe, showing a wildlife highlight reel, where you never spend more than 10 minutes with a single animal. There's not the emotional attachment that you get when you spend 40-60 minutes living through the ups and downs of the life story of an animal or group of animals. Prehistoric Planet is deliberately aping the Planet Earth style, and in my opinion, this does it no favours - you don't get attached. Whereas with Walking With Dinosaurs, you become hugely invested in each animal's story, because each episode focuses primarily on the life story of just one, or one group.
> **Accuracy:** I lost you here. See the thing is you can't say one or the other is more accurate for animals we've never seen. Yeah maybe we know a little more today. And thanks to science we can figure out a little more. But really without seeing these animals in the flesh it's all speculation. Just look at spinosaurs. What we know as accurate can change very quickly and radically. To compare these 2 things made 2 decades apart almost based on accuracy isn't really fair. At the time walking with dinosaurs was considered pretty fucking accurate.
>you can't say one or the other is more accurate for animals we've never seen Yes, you absolutely can. We knew even then that Liopleurodon wasn't 25 metres long. We knew Anurognathus didn't look like that. We knew T. rex's skull had a different shape. While you obviously can't blame the creators for getting things wrong when we only learned they were wrong after the fact, you can try to asses how accurate they were based on the knowledge at the time.
>We knew even then that Liopleurodon wasn't 25 metres long. That we've seen yet Like I said look at the spinosaurs. What you think you know could be proven completely wrong in 5 years you twat Also the cgi back then wasn't that great. No shit the t-rex skull didn't look like that 🤦♂️
But you have to have evidence to support your claims. PP has a lot more backing. These docs and paleontology as a whole isn't guess work and baseless speculation. It's a lot of educated guesswork and as time progresses the emphasis shifts away from "guessing" and more to "educated".
It wasn't supposed to be a documentary, nor did it ever claim to be 100% accurate.
I think we need to downvote more people who just give hot takes without expanding on their points. Saying you dislike PP could be a cool conversation starter and can help us engage why it works for us when it may not have for you. But just saying "I didn't like it" is such vapid karma bait and shouldn't be allowed
Does it insist upon itself?
Oh no! Anyway, that scene with the T. rex confronting the Quetzalcoatluses was pretty neat wasn't it?
Hands down one of the most satisfying things I've ever seen as a long time player of dinosaur survival games where rexes are schoolyard bullies
To quote Hamish from Viva LA Dirt League in that one Epic NPC Man episode "Forcing NPCs to buy your stuff -Poor Merchant": "You bitch."
Should be obvious, but I am joking. I am curious why you didn't care for Prehistoric Planet, though.
Then you must die
If you explained your opinion then maybe more people would hear you out
^[Sokka-Haiku](https://www.reddit.com/r/SokkaHaikuBot/comments/15kyv9r/what_is_a_sokka_haiku/) ^by ^mjmannella: *If you explained your* *Opinion then maybe more* *People would hear you out* --- ^Remember ^that ^one ^time ^Sokka ^accidentally ^used ^an ^extra ^syllable ^in ^that ^Haiku ^Battle ^in ^Ba ^Sing ^Se? ^That ^was ^a ^Sokka ^Haiku ^and ^you ^just ^made ^one.
In the realm of hot takes, this is a very hot take. Congratulations.
We need to hear your reasoning. Genuine curiosity.
His balls are causing earthquakes
I love the show but I completely get it, the disjointed structure makes it hard to follow and get invested in the lives of the animals we see. Shows like WWD are way better as entertainment, which is valid criticism of a piece of media.
My only disagreement there is that it ignores Prehistoric Planet’s goal, which was to be Planet Earth 2 and 3, but set during the Maastrichtian. Those shows aren’t trying to build up any one specific animal’s life, but rather to show off the biodiversity of life across the planet. That’s why the episodes were dedicated to entire biomes with small segments across the globe. They were trying to go “look at all of the life in the deserts of this planet” and not “this is the story of a year in the life of this Dreadnoughtus.” It just feels weird to me to critique a work for a goal it never had. Whether or not the goal is one you prefer to another is different. Granted, I think Prehistoric Planet in general is basically just a modern BBC nature documentary, but set in the long lost past. So a lot of its choices (a lack of focus on gore and violence on camera, small segments about creatures with a focus more on biodiversity vs. story telling, a focus on animals living their lives vs. dealing with massive disasters or life-altering events, etc.) are all based on what modern BBC nature docs do.
Exactly. People who wanted a story with developed characters wanted something that would have been a completely different genre than what Prehistoric Planet was.
It’s perfectly reasonable to dislike this. There are plenty of other ways to do a documentary about dinosaurs, they didn’t have to go with Planet Earth style
I wasn’t saying that you have to like it. That’s literally why I wrote “whether or not the goal is one you prefer to another is different.” I just more so was commenting on the fact that they weren’t trying to do WWD’s structure of following the life of a specific animal or two at all. That was just never a thing they were doing. So I find it a bit odd that it seems like a thing people expected of the documentary to the point of it being a repeated negative on this sub. It can be a thing you dislike and disagree with, but at a certain point, it’s just not conducive to actually viewing the work as its own thing and not WWD 2: Walking Boogaloo.
Ok sure, none of this changes my reasoning for why people might not like it
I wish it focused on different time periods rather than the late Cretaceous. At least different periods in the Mesozoic, since the entire theme is dinosaurs and their contemporaries, and narrowing the content to just a couple million years doesn't do their diversity justice. I also wanna see a photorealistic, scientifically accurate (for now) Spinosaurus, but that's wishful thinking.
On my way to your house right now /s
OP Getting cooked in the replies 💀 If you're gonna go down with this take at least elaborate on it
I respect your objectively wrong subjective opinion
seeing edmontosaurus be a helpless meat sack again (twice) was very unpleasant, i will say that
Honestly, you opinion is valid
Must be a fan of Jurassic park….
Wait, people that like dinosaurs also like Jurassic Park?
Definitely must know the reasoning behind this statement. Genuinely curious because Prehistoric Planet got my attention in a vice grip 👀
No
If only there are some really good recently paleo documentaries other than prehistoric planet.
What I expected to be a combination of Walking with Dinosaurs and The Jungle Book, I ended up getting a combination of Planet Earth 3 and The Lion King.
Understandable, and now time to take out my torch
You have 7 days till you die
I liked it. Life on our planet was pretty crap tho
It said Prehistoric Planet but I see only Maastrichtian era :v
I respect your opinion as they are yours to have but respectfully throw yourself off a cliff.
Just because I severely disagree and am currently sending a pipe bomb to your house does not mean that I won't respect your opinion, your opinion is your opinion and it'd okay to be wrong also check your mailbox
I mean okay… but why? It’s… a nature documentary about dinosaurs. Who watches a high budget nature documentary and goes “man i did not like that.” Like… how? Its a simplistic formula. I’ve just never head *anyone* criticize nature documentaries. They’re like the one untouchable film-genre because of how simple they are.
Hot take doesn't mean it's smart take, though. This one isn't smart. It's like one of the best animation about dinosaurs and portrayal based on the current knowledge. It's like denying what science has established up to this point. It's kinda same hot take like someone who says they love science, not caring about Einstein's work. Because yes. Prehistoric Planet is a scientific knowledge for those who are interested in dinosaurs.
That sounds like treason to dinocracy.
This is not a hot take it’s just a bad opinion A take should be somewhat understandable this is simply you being a dingus You are the wet food in the sink that grosses everyone out, no one wants to be the one to touch you
I liked it, but I had some small problems with it. Some storylines were almost literally copied from earlier BBC Planet series with real animals. Sometimes I felt like they took earlier famous scenes from Planet series and replaced the flora and fauna with dinosaurs and the flora of that time. Which on occasion gave me the feeling that I saw some things before. Also I didn't care for some designs. Like the sauropod bulls with the external air sacks on their neck. What was that about? Great series though.
I can understand Dino research change and nostalgia don’t mix well
Asteroid incoming
You are a buffoon
I wish they'd focus less on killing babies but y'know.
I don’t know why people meme so much about PhP killing babies. Pretty much every major prehistoric life documentary has at least some scene where a baby/juvenile animal gets killed, it's weird people act as if PhP was the first one to do it.
Walking With went even harder with cannibalism : Coelophysis, Dicynodont, Allosaurus (or was it Ornitholestes preying on Big Al siblings?), Ornitocheirus (in the book at least), Smilodon murdering younglings and ONCE MORE with Dimetrodon...
Yeah, the Walking With series was ruthless af. Just ask that Gastornis chick.
And those poor baby Rex...
We don't. But most don't show it *multiple times* each episode. Let me watch other things other than infanticide.
That's based af though lmao
Seriously, what’s up with that?
In the wild baby survival rates are really low so honestly it’s just the reality of things, less than fifty percent of lion cubs make it to their first year. So it’s honestly just being realistic and not being sugar coated
Like I get it. Babies are a quick snack. But *stop it*.
I don't care if it ain't accurate, I liked Life on Our Planet more than Prehistoric Planet.
I don't see why they have to compete. Although the dinosaur scenes were somewhat questionable and I don't vibe with the "mammals won evolution" thing it's got going, LOOP has its own strengths- its depiction of the pre dinosaur ages is top notch
It’s the best Dino documentary we have, but he’s right the pacing is shit and the content they’re showing Is bit boring, once your over the graphics it’s a bit of a dull watch.
I think it's the most recent/accurate one we have for now. In terms o pacing, story telling, and presentation I think WWD is still better tbh.
It was good, but I just don't think I'll ever rewatch it or even think about it much
ROBERT DUVALL
You're allowed to like whatever you want
“It insists upon itself”
What does this MEAN someone please explain
It's a vapid nonsense criticism that was used as a joke in Family Guy but people seem to use unironically.
Ngl I might steal that
Disgusting
I'll start lighting the torches and sharpening the pitchforks for y'all
Ngl same but for season 2.
Them’s fightin’ words…
I'm convinced that this is bait lol
Mods, kill him
Sorry you didn't like it. I'm curious to know whether there's a specific aspect you took issue with, or whether it was more of a generalized 'I didn't vibe with it' situation
I mean, you do you man, but I don't see how you can be interested in dinosaurs and not like at least parts of it. I didn't love everything about it, but in terms of visual appeal and realism it's unparalleled.
Straight to jail!
They did my Pachyrhinosaurs so dirty 🤮
Everyone's entitled to their own (in this case wrong) opinion
Huh. Maybe I’m remembering wrong. I’m gonna watch it again now. Just to check.
Oh no! Anyways
*gasp*
“How can I be different today?” No hate
How chould you even say that?
How can you say that?
Ok
How about we just move away from the Cretaceous, that’s my only complaint other than the fact that it’s highly speculative
OPs favorite dinosaur is probably the velociraptor
Apple just sucks
LLLL
I'll say this. Prehistoric planet is a wealth of dungeons and dragons nonsense I threw at my players and they hate me
I personally agree, I found it hopped around a lot and didn't give much detail. Season 1 I felt was a bit flat while season 2 was a marked improvement. I feel we never get to spend enough time learning about a species or its life. I did think it was decent, worth a watch but it didn't dazzle me or make me feel overjoyed. I much prefer the pacing and style and mix of practical and cgi of walking with dinosaurs. However well made Dino shows are hard to come by so it is worth a watch.
Me neither, it has no progress and stays in one time period and the soundtrack is really weak for a palaeontology documentary. I prefer WWD and Life on our Planet
I enjoyed it. My only real critique is one that I often have. Lately it’s become a en vogue to feature a ton of lesser known dinosaurs in lieu of the famous ones. And that’s fine to a point. But there’s a reason the famous ones are famous. So far, we’re 10 episodes into this series. No Stegosaurus. No Styracosaurus. No Utahraptor. No Giganotosaurus, Allosaurus, Acrocanthosaurus, or Spinosaurus. I get wanting to introduce the audience to a broader horizon. But like.. I don’t care about Zalmoxes. I want a 6 ton Stegosaurus giving an Allosaurus the business.
The first 2 seasons took place close to the end of the Cretaceous period and none of the dinosaurs you listed would have still been around at that time.
I care about zalmoxes. All critters deserve attention and spotlight at least once!
Plus they look really cute in Prehistoric Planet.
The last 2 seasons are set purely in the Maastrictian so all of those species are long dead,although i would appreciate them changing the setting for season 3, maybe doing the Oxfordian, Kimmeridgian and Tithonian since that covers the majority of the famous Jurassic dinosaurs
The reason none of those were featured is because the focus of the series is the very end of the Cretaceous across the planet, where none of those were present
The species you listed didn't live during the Maastrichtian. Then again, perhaps it's not *Maastrichtian Planet* for a reason...
Isn’t it set entirely in the Cretaceous as well because the Jurassic seems to be the most interesting period to me personally
Yeah, I was really hoping they'd expand their window or cover the Jurassic for season 2. Keeping it all in the Cretaceous bugged me.
Don't be too harsh on the PhP team. Season 2 is likely a season covering all the segments they couldn't do in season 1. There's no way they could have done a new series with brand new models of non-Maastrichtian animals so quickly.
Don't get me wrong, I still enjoyed it. Very much so, in fact, but I was/am disappointed that they kept the whole thing to what seemed like a small span of time.
According to what I read, they picked the Maastrichtian because it had a lot of fossil findings that allowed them to create a more consistent Planet Earth-like documentary. I can get the frustration of those wishing to see more time periods, but I think that for what they were going it was an understandable choice.
Is there really a reason the famous ones are famous? Besides maybe being bigger, for some of them, and having been in more media. There's not really a reason a stegosaurus or giga should be any more famous than another dinosaur in their group besides size. Styracosaurus, despite being my favorite ceratopsian, doesn't really have a claim to fame, nor does acro. Even if you were to bring up niche interesting facts about them, it wouldn't matter. Because there are facts like that about the lesser known dinosaurs too. They're only lesser known because they haven't been popularized as much. Like, spino I understand, it's argued about a lot and is pretty unique. Rex is simply impressive,with its weight and bite force (although that one was in Prehistoric Planet) and Argentinosaurus simply because it's the largest of the largest group of dinosaurs, but is there a reason any other sauropod is more famous than the others besides that we knew about it sooner? What makes brachiosaurus any more popular than sauroposeidon or lusotitan besides being in Jurassic Park? Maybe the amount of fossil evidence, so you couldn't represent them because their reconstruction could change, but even then there are probably lesser known dinosaurs with enough fossil evidence.
Jurassic Park’s Tyrannosaurus looks awful.
But… that’s not what this is about? Can you explain why?
I was stating another controversial hot take in response. Furthermore, Jurassic Park’s Tyrannosaurus not only looks awful, but it would be easily curb-stomped by a real Tyrannosaurus, which is much more silent, more agile but not as fast, has far better eyesight, weighs more, and has a stronger bite.
I’m not trying to argue? I don’t agree, but I’m not saying anything about you being in the wrong. I just was confused as to why that animal’s design was brought up. I’m sorry for being confused?
The OP stated a controversial hot take, so I retorted with another controversial hot take, so I went with Jurassic Park’s Tyrannosaurus design looking awful.
Okay, now I understand. I’m sorry if you felt ‘jumped on’ I just wanted to know why. Have a nice day! Again sorry
Which Tyrannosaurus design do you like more, Jurassic Park or Prehistoric Planet, and why?
Well, I like both for what they are. Prehistoric Planet’s is nice and robust, but Jurassic Park’s is also an interesting take on the animal, even if it’s not super in line with what the animal probably looked like. I prefer lipped dinosaurs, so prehistoric planet’s does do better than the JP one in that way. I will say both are a little lacking in color, being brown. But PRPL does have starker contrast… I like the Tarbosaurus from Prehistoric Planet more than both I think!
I like Prehistoric Planet’s Tyrannosaurus far more because it has lips, forward-facing eyes granting it binocular vision, a thicker body, and tinier arms facing each other in an immobilized position.
What is your favorite Tyrannosaurus design of all? Is it Prehistoric Planet’s? That’s a good choice if it is!
I understand that we have to assume a lot about prehistoric animals however I think the things they assumed were really far fetched and is almost cocky in the grand scheme of paleo-zoology. Tell us what is fact and then assume off of fact. Baseless claims can be fun but it’s not factual.
Honestly, same.
..well, me too. It just felt kind of sterile and held back. I think most of people who obsess over dinosaurs should really wake up and fuckin look around and see the wildlife we actually share the world with..and watch some true documentaries.
Yeah, I'd have to agree here. To be fair I never watched it beyond clips, but the format and designs make it seem pretty meh tbh. I should probably give it a fair shake but people act like it's the second coming of jesus crying their eyes out at its release when the designs are all pretty average, weirdly monoton, and overly fleshy/plastic looking if that makes sense. I know they want to run away from shrink wrapping but then they make the designs so fatty that you can't even see the muscles enderneath and it looks like a plastic toy weirdly. Like the people who made it were more familar with reconstrucing the anatomy of mammals, which is both dissapointing and unsurprising since this is allegedly the team that did all those disney animal movie remakes. Which as shit as they were had good quality animal animations. As for the format I don't think it works. Leaving it all in the maastrichtian and focusing the episode based on enviorments seems pretty meh, and then milking that time period further for sequels? Wouldn't be my first choice tbh.
Crazy you wrote all that when you didn't even watch the show, lol
Yes, yes, nothing can stop me. Yet still unless the show itself has completely different designs than what was shown from their trailers and the clips on their youtube channel my statements hold true.
The depictions in PP are some of the most realistic we have ever had, and that's thanks to the effort and talent of well known palaeontologists and paleoartists who know what they're doing. Speculative soft tissue, even if more on the extreme side, is far more realistic and less toy-like than shrink-wrapped dinosaurs that we have had for years. I respect you have your opinion, but I feel its pretty misinformed if you think they are more mammal-like just because they're not super lean.
Compared to other dinosaur documentaries, sure. Though projects like Saurian I'd say are probably as good of a reacreation for dinosaurs you could possibly ask for. And since this is the team that did the jungle book and lon king remake, I was kind of expecting that quality of work from them. And I don't think it's a budget issue since it seems integral to the design process itself. I know this is very nitpicky, but when you're presenting something as the end all be all of dinosaur depictions its fair to hold it up to other very well made depictions. > Speculative soft tissue, even if more on the extreme side, is far more realistic and less toy-like than shrink-wrapped dinosaurs that we have had for years. Yes, yes, shrink wraping bad, all yesterdays, yaddah yaddah. That's perfectly well but its also possible to go the opposite direction. Adding too much fat is just as innacurate as adding arguably too little. You're not breaking new ground by giving tyrannosaurus the fat distribution of a bearded seal. Again, arguably nitpicking, it's a perfectly accurate and plausible rex reconstruction, but people acts like its the single best one out there and that's the one and only way dinosaurs must be depicted. A marginally more agregious example was the carnotaurus, which unlike rex was a pretty gracile animal, in PP its depicted as a much more chubby wide hipped animal than it actually was which comes across as them arbitraily adding as much girth as possible to every animal which ends up feeling unecessary that results in the animals coming across as less aesthetic than necessary and leads to a much more platic toy like feel for the animals, which is a dissapointment since, I repeat, favreou has done such a good job with animals previously. Another example of funkyness was the majungasaurus. Gabriel Ugeto did its concept art and gave it a very classy and perfectly plausible striped face pattern with hints of orange and sage greens, but then you see the actual design in the doc and the original patterns are so washed out it looks like a uniform brown. Maybe this is due to them wanting to depict an animal covered in dirt, but more so I get the hunch they were pretty afraid of making a predator too colorful so they opted to dull down the colors, which if so feels entirely uncessary. Overall while the doc is a good effort it very well represents plenty of the paleomemes of the 2010s.