Walking With Beasts Arena Spectacular?

[goodlife18]

Given the success of the Walking with Dinosaurs series it is no surprise that it was turned into a live Arena Spectacular. But what about Walking with Beasts? It was also a very good series.  So do you guys think it is time for a Walking with Beasts Arena spectacular to be created?  I think so. 

[triceratops83]

Ehhhhh... I love the documentary, but prehistoric mammals won't capture the attention of the general public the way Dinosaurs do. Dinosaurs are otherworldly. I'd rather go to a zoo and see a rhino than pay to sit in a theatre to watch a fake Rhino-like puppet, whereas I would to see a Diplodocus. I'd rather the BBC did another cenozoic documentary.

[Pachyrhinosaurus]

I agree with Triceratops83. If WWD were to add a mammoth or something at the end of the show, then that might work, but I doubt as many people would pay to see animals, which in the eyes of the GP would look like contorted modern animals, as they would dinosaurs.

[Paleogene Pals]

I also agree with triceratops83. While we on DTF love, appreciate, and get excited over prehistoric mammals, most folks would not. After all, most mammals are not as big and spectacular as the biggest dinosaurs, although they are just as interesting.

[CityRaptor]

Doesn't help that  lot of them are at first glance just slightly different versions of what one can find in a Zoo.

[Manatee]

I have to agree with everyone else; the sense of awe that a massive dinosaur inspires in us can't really be compared to by essentially a bunch of rhinos and horses; although, seeing a Phorusrhacos or Gastornis would be awesome!

[stargatedalek]

A brief ending (or possibly beginning, perhaps looking backwards through time ) segment about the evolution of dinosaurs after the Mesozoic would be interesting, but I highly doubt a full scale production of post Mesozoic life would sell well with the general public.

[goodlife18]

So the point people are trying to make here is that Prehistoric Mammals aren't spectacular as Dinosaurs because they were too similar looking to modern day Animals? Now that you guys brought this up, I think I can understand why they did not create an Arena spectacular for Prehistoric Beasts.

Come to think of it, Prehistoric mammals pretty much fall behind dinosaurs in terms of popularity.

But falling further behind would be prehistoric creatures that lived before the dinosaurs.

I suppose the same could be said for Walking with Monsters Arena Spectacular.  However weird or cool prehistoric reptiles and amphibians looked e.g dimetrodon, gorgonopsids, pareiasaurs, dicynodonts or giant prehistoric insects, they just aren't as imposing or spectacular enough to capture the imagination of audiences.

[triceratops83]

But falling further behind would be prehistoric creatures that lived before the dinosaurs.

I suppose the same could be said for Walking with Monsters Arena Spectacular.  However weird or cool prehistoric reptiles and amphibians looked e.g dimetrodon, gorgonopsids, pareiasaurs, dicynodonts or giant prehistoric insects, they just aren't as imposing or spectacular enough to capture the imagination of audiences.

The general public considers Dimetrodon and all those paleozoic creatures Dinosaurs anyway. Sounds cool but I don't know how they'd market that.

[goodlife18]

The general public considers Dimetrodon and all those paleozoic creatures Dinosaurs anyway. Sounds cool but I don't know how they'd market that.

Well, they could insert a short scene of Palaeozoic creatures and then end it with the Permian extinction.  Then fast forward into the Triassic. Not sure how it would be done, but a cool idea nonetheless. Once they come into the Triassic, they could show
Paleozoic creatures e.g. Lystrosaurus, Placerias and Postosuchus competing with Dinosaurs and how dinosaurs ultimately triumphed.

Doesn't help that  lot of them are at first glance just slightly different versions of what one can find in a Zoo.

Nevertheless, despite similarities between Prehistoric and Modern day mammals, there were some that were nothing like modern day animals.  E.g. Megatherium was a relative of a modern day sloth but was nothing like a modern sloth. Entelodonts were relatives of pigs but looked nothing like pigs.  Indricotherium didn't look much like a modern rhino. And for creatures like Chalicotheres, I doubt there was any modern day equivalent even though they are related to modern day ungulates

Just a thought anyway.

[triceratops83]

Doesn't help that  lot of them are at first glance just slightly different versions of what one can find in a Zoo.

Nevertheless, despite similarities between Prehistoric and Modern day mammals, there were some that were nothing like modern day animals.  E.g. Megatherium was a relative of a modern day sloth but was nothing like a modern sloth. Entelodonts were relatives of pigs but looked nothing like pigs.  Indricotherium didn't look much like a modern rhino. And for creatures like Chalicotheres, I doubt there was any modern day equivalent even though they are related to modern day ungulates

Just a thought anyway.

Oh yeah, I agree, and I imagine everyone else here does as well, I'm just saying you'd have a hard time trying to sell this to the average Joe Shlub. Gotta remember, as fascinating as the natural world is, most people just want pop culture...

[goodlife18]

Oh yeah, I agree, and I imagine everyone else here does as well, I'm just saying you'd have a hard time trying to sell this to the average Joe Shlub. Gotta remember, as fascinating as the natural world is, most people just want pop culture...

That would probably explain why some of the 'documentaries' shown on channels like Discovery Channel end up looking more like Reality TV. Sometimes you don't know if you are watching a Nature Documentary or a Reality TV series.