This released in burgerland about a week ago.

I've only seen two episodes so far; I skipped episode 1 because the stuff regarding it in the promo material looked genuinely fucking terrible (Edmontosaurus chewing side-to-side, T. rex ignoring the adult triceratops threatening it in it's face to expose it's flank and go after a baby, the animations freezing, etc.) and started with episode 2 to see if the others were good.

First, I think people were right in saying that this is much more like a sequel to Dinosaur Planet than it is to Walking With Dinosaurs. Named protagonists with a bit of anthropomorphism, intercut with modern paleontologists.
As such I knew in advance to not judge it as a Walking With Dinosaurs (1999) successor and just try viewing it as it's own thing.

I really liked episode 2. The spinosaurus design is brilliant, with it looking equal parts awkward and proud. Sobek as a protagonist is fantastic. It's going to sound cringe, but focusing on an overwhelmed single dad calls to me as a pet owner. Finally getting a scene of an Azhdarchid hunting in a forest of thin spindly trees was also just plain perfect, particularly with what the stakes were. I didn't even mind the modern paleontologist scenes since spinosaurus is such a little understood animal, and Morocco is foreign enough to be exciting. The scale on the shots was also well done, and I appreciated it more seeing what went into the episode's special effects at the end.
My main problems would be that the fully underwater scenes looked terrible, and Sobek's death is a bit questionable; I can't see one spinosaurus delivering a fatal bite against another just to try and steal it's fish. Not only that but their claws were longer than their teeth, so Sobek should have done more damage than the older male.
Not even a spinofag, by the way.

Episode 3 was pretty bad. The animals behaved like they were on Jurassic Fight Club, and George was for some reason always animated breathing in a seriously labored way. I think it was done to give him more "personality," but he just looks like he's ill from beginning to end. These paleontology segments were also fairly boring, though I can't place why. It also felt like there were more of them than episode 2, and that could either be why they felt boring, or them being boring could be why it felt like there were more of them. It ended up making me very sleepy overall, and I had to watch it in two sittings.

>>5004113 (OP)
>t rex had gay eye shadow
The absolute state.

>>5004126
*Albertosaurus.
Birds have gay eye shadow, too.

>fucking named dinosaurd
>shit models
>shit animation
>shit designs that make no logical sense
>shit soundtrack
>shit narration
>shit stories
And most damning of all
>shit music

>>5004212
>>shit soundtrack
>>shit music
Shit post.

>>5004214
It's so terrible it has to be brought up twice

This is a real dino.

>>5004113 (OP)
Good choice to skip episode 1, I easily found it the most frustrating in terms of the sheer frequency of paleontological cuts that only served to give the most basic of information. I also thought the circumstances behind Sobek's death were pretty weak, especially considering how resilient reptiles in general are and especially dinosaurs. I know it's a wildly different species but Stan survived a broken neck that was almost certainly caused by another T. rex, the gash that killed Sobek must have been one in a million. It felt a lot like they were forcing themselves into a sad ending because that's the kind of thing WWD used to do, except it had more weight and purpose to it back then. We knew from the cold open the Ornithocheirus male was going to die and this would be his final migration, but the real tragedy came from the fact that he was too late and too weak to even get one whiff of pterosaur pussy. The deaths in each episode served to punctuate some kind of point, the Postosuchus showed that the old reptiles were on their way out, the Liopleurodon showed that this was still the dinosaur's world, and even the death of the Leallynasaura matriarch showed the resilience of dinosaurs in even the harshest circumstances with the clan managing to recover (completely contradicted by the following episode, but whatever). With all the paleontological segments especially, it seems like this show just revels in reminding you that the animals are dead for the sake of it. I also way prefer how these kinds of segments are done in other shows like Planet Dinosaur. Instead of trying to be diegetic with the paleontologists making weird jokes about dino poop and 3D printing T. rex brain cases in the field to tell each other things they should already know, a guy just tells you, the audience, what the science behind the show is before the commercial break. Sobek's episode was a highlight, but this show really did frustrate me.

>>5004127
Most Bird display patterns look way better. You don't HAVE to go for something bland and ugly looking for your speculative design.

I hated the way they justified their "stories" with fossil finds. Ep 6 was especially egregious with it.
>we found a random rib at another dig site a mile away! That means there's two rival male sauropods at the exact same time!!!
>there's two lusotitans in this site! That means our romeo finds his juliet like it was a Hollywood movie!!!

Fuck, just go with full CG episodes if you're so desperate to tell a dramatic story. But I guess that would be expensive and judging from the animation quality they didn't have a lot of budget.

>>5004741
My favorite part is the Lusotitan somehow soundlessly sneaking up on the Torvosaur on an open beach.

>>5004741
They want the True Crime audience.
>OMG THIS IS JUST LIKE A MURDER CASE!

>>5004741
That's because they chose fossils that don't really have a story to tell. Big Al worked as well as it did because not only was the fossil remarkably complete, but it was riddled with pathologies that could easily tell a story about the life the animal lived, and explain how it died. The only thing to glean about Clover is that it died young, and the show says basically nothing about that, only that it probably wasn't due to predation from an adult T. rex. So we're left with kind of a pointless story because the show doesn't bother to say how Clover was orphaned, or how it died, just that these things happened. The only episode that actually answers the question of how the animal died in a definitive way is the Pachyrhinosaurus episode, and we frustratingly don't even get to see the flood that killed them. The Gastonia episode tries this, but it's impossible to tell if the forest fire happened at the exact same time as the Gastonia died, even if material from both was found in the same area. I'd honestly rather they loosely base a story they wanted to tell on some existing fossils like they did with Spinosaurus and Lusotitan as opposed to being so scared to say anything definitive that they don't tell a story at all like with Triceratops.

>>5004804
Why does it need a fucking story to begin with? It's a nature documentary, not a drama.
All you need to do is have a program that says
>this is what life was like in ancient times, it had different animals, different conditions, but sometimes similar conditions
Like pic related. You could do something on cold water Devonian or whatever life, do something cool like the brinicle, and that's it. You're done. "Story" told, information transmitted, the populace is educated. Instead everything has to be
>this is alice, the stegosaurus, she won't get eaten by an allosaurus because THE SCIENCE has proven allosaurus was actually a vegetarian that fed on magic and sunshine, here's a paleontologist to explain this 'discovery'

>>5004113 (OP)
The show sounds like more atheistic mythological garbage.

>>5004819
If the format they're going for is the Big Al style of focusing on a named protagonist based on a real fossil, then I would argue it is important that the fossil in question have some kind of story to tell. Obviously that's a format issue and they could have simply not chose that format, and I would agree with that decision, I think Big Al worked for what it was, but I think that's because the Big Al specimen is so unique, and maybe one or two other fossils can tell a similar story. If you are going to be titling your documentary "Walking With Dinosaurs" then I expect a level of storytelling on par with the original. The "protagonist" species doesn't have to be named, just a focal point of the documentary as a lens to showcase the biodiversity and interspecies interactions of the time period. That's what the original did, and it did a just fine job at that.

>>5004386
Hell Yeah

>>5004113 (OP)
The show had better look better than this poster because this poster looks like full animation compared to Series 1 from 30 goddamn years ago

>>5004113 (OP)
>a scene of an Azhdarchid hunting in a forest
Seeing those pterosaurs hunt while camouflaging themselves as trees were awesome, probably the only time this series has decent directing

I also gave props to the baby triceratops episode because it shows a Trike killing a Rex, and I say that as a lifelong Rexfag. It's just awesome to see those horns do damage

>>5004113 (OP)
>the original WWD came out in 1999
AHHH FUCK AHHHH WHAT THE HELL IT'S BEEN TWENTY-SIX FUCKING YEARS OH GOD MY LIFE IS ONE THIRD OVER OPTIMISTICALLY

>>5004434
Yeah I was pretty surprised when he started stumbling and laid down to die. The bite truly didn't seem that bad. I think you're right in that it was trying to emulate the Postosuchus, Lopleurodon and Ornithocheirus.
The only thing I can think of is that a tooth nicked the coratid, but it doesn't make much sense how Sobek gashing out the older male's neck seemingly didn't kill the latter, nor that the older male would go for a killing bite over a single fish.

I think the show is trying to promote paleontology and create a new generation of paleontologists with these segments, but I think it's poorly executed.

I watched episode 4 in the interim and didn't care for it; in your opinion are episodes 5 and 6 worth a watch? Or is episode 2 really the only thing the show has going for it?
I'm tempted to watch episode 6 because I'm pretty happy that Torvosaurus is getting featured in something other than Dinosaur Revolution.

>>5004916
Reminds me of pic related.

>>5004113 (OP)
When people say "Old thing good new thing bad" they are right 100% of the time

>>5004113 (OP)
The designs in general are good. Why did they make the Albertosaurus in particular so ugly?

>>5005532
It's the smattering of random pastel colors on the face with no real intentional pattern combined with a clear attempt to emulate the thin, almost translucent filaments on the PP T. rex on a fraction of the budget. The facial colors are all over the place, light purple, light blue, dark teal, with no color being explicitly sexually dimorphic, which makes it feel more like you clicked "randomized patterns" in Jurassic World Evolution 2 rather than finding a real group of animals, and the filaments look thin, but noticeable, so it almost looks like they have mange or something. The randomized colors thing really bugs me because I can hardly think of a single animal that looks so different in terms of variation in color from one individual to the next unless it's been selectively bred to have exactly that color. Most frogs I know of only have two wild morphs at most, like mint and gold P. terribilis, or green and brown Pacific tree frogs. Even for birds, all I can think of are green and blue budgies, and again those are another case of extreme selective breeding, most birds are pretty rigid with their color schemes outside of obvious mutations like albinism. The lack of intentional pattern also just makes it look off, like it's just a loose smudge of paint on the animal's face. Compare that to the stripes on the Utahraptor's face and upper back, as well as its countershading, it looks fine. It's not a bad model, it's just that those stupid face colors do it no favors.

>>5004113 (OP)
>>5004114
>>5004434
>>5004741
While the series itself isn't that great, it's weird to see people get pedantic over stuff that I didn't really give a shit about. Like, the same people would throw a fit about "Uh.. a T Rex wouldn't go after the baby trike like that! So unrealistic!!" but not extend that same treatment to Prehistoric Planet. Like the water truce stuff isn't as common as you'd think. Lions and crocs ambush prey at watering holes all the time.

https://youtu.be/ejdCf7_fCGI?feature=shared&t=170

>>5007017
I don't even mind a full grown T. rex going after a baby Triceratops. It's fine when the Rajasaurus hunts a bunch of baby Isisaurus in PP, this is fine too. My issue with the rex's portrayal is that it seems to be the exact same rex over and over again over the course of maybe a day or two. This makes it feel needlessly villainous, like it's not just hunting this baby Triceratops, it's vindictive against it in particular. Another issue is that it's basically the same scenario again and again until the finale when the rex finally dies. Baby's about to get eaten by the rex, saved at the last minute. Two of the instances are basically the same where some poor sap just gets eaten instead, so now the T. rex is at least full for the time being. That combined with the miniscule species roster just makes the world feel incredibly small and the story incredibly inconsequential. At the very least PP has good visuals, unique interactions, and a solid species roster on its side. Even if the water hole truce would be uncommon, the visual is gorgeous and it's a behavior rarely showcased in dinosaur media. I think Camp Cretaceous is the only other example that comes to mind.

>>5007017
When a product is of high quality it is easier to ignore small flaws. Same reason why no one gives a shit about the inconsistencies in Jurassic Park but don't give the Jurassic World movies the same treatment

>>5004825
then there are a plenty better fossils to choose, id have loved a big al style take on one of the named rex specimens like Stan or Sue, there are Albertosaurus and Gorgosaurus specimens with multiple pathologies, and Acrocanthosaurus you could take the Paluxy river trackways and work that into Frans life story. And thats just American Theropods.

>>5007017
My problem with the T.rex was that it constantly failing to catch a baby made it look like a retarded Land Before Time villain, which clashed heavily with the more threatening and naturalistic portrayal that it seemed to want to give off. It's one of the worst depictions of T.rex I've ever seen, it even alerted prey to its presence by stepping on a stick twice like a cartoon henchman. It's especially bad comparing it to the T.rex from the original Walking With Dinosaurs, which was portrayed in a much more nuanced and believable way. Dinoautists throw around the term "like real animals!" a lot but comparing the two is genuinely comparing an actual animal to a villain from a mediocre Disney movie.

>>5004854
It doesn't, this shit just came out and it already feels dated.

>>5008469
Yeah it just seemed dumb to me when it was expending so much effort getting tunnel vision'd on a bite sized snack meanwhile the actual threat was around the corner. Normies will just say "le real animals" when they act like cartoons.