Walking with Dinosaurs review – a cheap, tired revival whose cliches are as old as fossils

TruthLens AI Suggested Headline:

"New Walking with Dinosaurs Series Fails to Capture Original's Innovation"

View Raw Article Source (External Link)
Raw Article Publish Date:
AI Analysis Average Score: 5.6
These scores (0-10 scale) are generated by Truthlens AI's analysis, assessing the article's objectivity, accuracy, and transparency. Higher scores indicate better alignment with journalistic standards. Hover over chart points for metric details.

TruthLens AI Summary

Walking with Dinosaurs originally premiered on BBC One in 1999, marking a significant moment in natural history broadcasting by utilizing CGI technology to create lifelike dinosaurs, which was a departure from the conventional wisdom that factual programming could not match the quality of Hollywood productions like Jurassic Park. The series was introduced with Kenneth Branagh’s narration, promising viewers a journey back to Earth 65 million years ago, showcasing an impressive visual illusion that captivated audiences. However, over the past 25 years, advancements in paleontology have resulted in a deeper understanding of dinosaurs, including new discoveries about their appearance, such as the presence of feathers and varied colors, which contrast sharply with the old depictions of uniformly green reptiles. The revival of the Walking with Dinosaurs brand was anticipated to push the boundaries of documentary filmmaking once again, yet the new installment has not delivered the expected innovation, feeling instead like a tired rehash of familiar themes and visuals that fail to compete with modern programming standards, such as Apple TV+'s Prehistoric Planet.

The new series begins at an archaeological dig in Montana, where a team is excavating a baby Triceratops nicknamed Clover. The narrative follows Clover's struggles for survival amidst prehistoric threats, interspersed with scenes of paleontologists performing routine tasks that detract from the dramatic storytelling. Despite the improved visuals, the animation lacks the smoothness seen in contemporary documentaries, making it feel less engaging. The series attempts to balance scientific information with storytelling, featuring moments of interaction between the science and the fictional narrative, such as a scene illustrating the color-changing ability of Triceratops. However, the overall presentation leaves viewers questioning the target audience, particularly as it seems to cater more to adults than the children who typically enjoy dinosaur content. While there are enjoyable moments, the new Walking with Dinosaurs does not resonate as a memorable addition to the genre, suggesting that it may not stand the test of time as its predecessor did.

TruthLens AI Analysis

The review of the revived "Walking with Dinosaurs" reflects a critical perspective on the evolution of natural history programming and its current state. The author contrasts the innovative CGI techniques of the original 1999 series with the perceived mediocrity of its modern iteration. This analysis delves into the implications of such a review, highlighting the underlying motivations, societal perceptions, and potential impacts of the article.

Purpose Behind the Review

The review seems to aim at expressing disappointment over the lack of innovation in the new series compared to its groundbreaking predecessor. By emphasizing the clichés and perceived inadequacies of the current production, the author critiques not just the program itself but also the broader trends in educational broadcasting. The intention appears to be to spark discussion about the quality and creativity in contemporary documentary filmmaking.

Public Perception and Sentiment

The article likely seeks to foster a sense of nostalgia for the original series while simultaneously critiquing the current trend in documentary production. It implies that audiences deserve better and that the BBC, once a leader in innovative broadcasting, is falling behind. This sentiment could resonate with viewers who feel similarly disappointed by the current media landscape.

Hidden Agendas or Omissions

While the review doesn't explicitly suggest any hidden motives, it implicitly raises questions about the BBC's funding and commitment to high-quality programming. The critique might serve to highlight broader issues within public broadcasting, such as budget cuts or shifts in focus that could be affecting production quality.

Manipulative Nature of the Review

This review carries a moderate level of manipulation through its use of language and emotional appeal. By utilizing phrases like "cheap and tired" and emphasizing clichés, the author effectively positions the new series as a failure, potentially swaying public opinion against it. The emotional tone conveys a sense of betrayal, which may provoke a strong reaction from readers.

Truthfulness of the Content

The review is grounded in factual observations about the evolution of paleontology and CGI technology. However, the subjective nature of the critique raises questions about its overall fairness. While the author provides valid points regarding advancements in scientific understanding and visual representation, the harsh appraisal could be seen as overly negative.

Societal Implications

The review could influence public expectations regarding educational programming and may lead to calls for higher standards in media production. If audiences feel that the quality of such documentaries is declining, this could affect viewership numbers and funding for similar projects in the future.

Target Audience

This critique seems to resonate more with audiences who value educational content and have a sense of nostalgia for earlier, more innovative programming. It likely appeals to enthusiasts of paleontology, documentary filmmaking, and viewers who appreciate high-quality storytelling in educational contexts.

Market Impact

While this review may not directly impact stock markets or financial sectors, it could influence public perception of the BBC and its programming choices. If the series fails to attract viewers, it could prompt discussions about funding and priorities, potentially affecting future investments in similar projects.

Geopolitical Relevance

There is no direct geopolitical relevance to this review, as it focuses on media production and educational content. However, the underlying themes of cultural production and public broadcasting can reflect broader societal values and priorities, which may indirectly influence public discourse on these topics.

AI Utilization in Writing

It is possible that AI tools were employed in drafting or editing the review, particularly in generating a coherent structure or analyzing viewer sentiments. The language used suggests a crafted approach that may have benefited from AI-assisted techniques, especially in generating impactful phrases and critiques.

The overall tone of the review, combined with its critical stance, indicates a desire for improvement in documentary filmmaking. It serves as a reminder of the high standards set by earlier works and the expectations audiences carry into new productions.

Unanalyzed Article Content

Walking with Dinosaurs began a new era of natural history broadcasting when it landedon BBC One in 1999. Rejecting the received wisdom that factual telly couldn’t afford to create CGI dinosaurs as convincing as the ones from the Jurassic Park movies, it opened with Kenneth Branagh’s narration confidently claiming that we were about to be transported to the Earth as it was 65m years ago. Then it pulled off this incredible illusion.

In the quarter of a century that has elapsed since then, much has changed. Palaeontologists have advanced their knowledge, discovering new species and coming to the realisation that not all of their conjecture about what dinosaurs looked like was correct. Now, we know some of them had feathers, or fur, or were brightly coloured, when previously we’d envisioned them all as a uniform reptilian greeny-brown. And, in TV, the dream of making a dino show that is indistinguishable from nature programmes shot on live cameras in the present day (because the computer-generated monsters are so realistic) has got closer and closer.

Reviving the Walking with Dinosaurs brand suggests that we are about to take another ground-shaking leap forward. But, it would be surprising if the increasingly extinct-smelling BBC of 2025 were able to perform the same feat it did in 1999 – and it hasn’t. The new Walking is a decent dino documentary and nothing more: it’s fine but compared with the competition, it feels cheap and tired.

We start at an archaeological dig in eastern Montana, which Bertie Carvel’s voiceover describes as “a vast, untamed wilderness”. To confirm that his script will be happy to use cliches that are almost as old as the fossils in the dry Montana dust, Carvel then informs us that the team from the North Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences is excavating an “iconic species” – a Triceratops.

Specifically, the scientists are exhuming an animal they have nicknamed Clover, a dog-sized baby Triceratops who died when she was around three years old. Cue the digitally created pictures of Laramidia, a continent that was the lush, green ancestor of what we call North America. Clover is surviving alone, bewildered by run-ins with the intimidating pterosaur, Infernodrakon – which hadn’t been discovered back when the original WWD went out – and surviving attacks from her most feared predator, the Tyrannosaurus rex. The ill-fated Clover tries to tag along with a passing adult Triceratops, but the show imagines a Disney-ish dynamic, where the old-timer can’t be doing with an annoying pup, so Clover has to join a herd of the cow-like Edmontosaurus instead.

The visuals are certainly better than they were 25 years ago, but they have a slight jerkiness that doesn’t look totally cutting-edge. Viewers who have immersed themselves in Prehistoric Planet, the stunning2022 Apple TV+ seriesnarrated by David Attenborough, are being asked to take a step backwards here: that show was so crisp and smooth it actually achieved the impossible and felt real.

As if it knows it can’t compete, the new Walking with Dinosaurs changes direction. All dino documentaries are based on the work of palaeontologists, and they usually mention what recent breakthroughs have been made. Here, however, we regularly leave the Clover story, return to the present and watch those experts carry out everyday tasks in a way that is painstaking to the point of tedium. As soil is brushed away, bones are measured and facts are delivered verbally by experts, instead of being illustrated by Clover the anthropomorphised digital dinosaur, it’s not clear who Walking with Dinosaurs is aimed at. Dinosaurs are massively popular with primary-schoolchildren, but it tends to be an interest that doesn’t survive the asteroid impact of puberty; of course there is a section of a Sunday teatime audience that might grow up and retain a desire to become the next generation of palaeontologists, but perhaps showing them real palaeontologists at work isn’t the best way to encourage them.

The science and the drama do interact effectively on occasion. In one thrilling sequence, vascular channels on the surface of a Triceratops bone lead the museum guys to surmise that the creature could change the colour pattern on its frill; then we see an adult Triceratops doing just that, making it look as if it has a pair of giant, blood-red eyes to scare off a T rex. Kids who haven’t become too fidgety during the science bits will also enjoy a neat twist at the end of the fictional Clover story, guessing at how she might have survived for at least a little longer. But when the bone-diggers of the future look back, this won’t be the dinosaur documentary they remember most fondly.

Walking with Dinosaurs aired on BBC One and is on iPlayer now.

Back to Home
Source: The Guardian