Walking with Dinosaurs 3D

[Gwangi]

I don't know what Milo and Otis is, sounds like some kind of Disney thing

As for the toys, I like the Gorgosaurus. I'd pick it up for its beauty alone.

"The Adventures of Milo and Otis" was originally a Japanese movie about a farm cat who gets lost (Milo) and his pug dog friend (Otis) ventures off to find him. It was released in 1986 and took four years to make. It was filmed entirely using live animals and was eventually edited for western audiences and dubbed over in English by English actor Dudley Moore. He not only narrated the movie but did the voices of all the animals. I loved the movie as a kid and I believe it was well received by critics. My wife recently bought it on DVD but I honestly don't want to watch it because to me it looks like animal cruelty now that I'm an adult and can understand those concepts. There are scenes where the cat is floating down a river in a box, the dog fights a bear, the cat is mobbed by birds and falls off a cliff into the ocean. They say no animals were harmed but I've read they used something like 30 cats and I'm sure none of them enjoyed the process.

I see. It doesn't sound like my kind of film, honestly.

Nope, if you're an adult watching it for the first time there is not much enjoyment to take away from it. You just end up thinking about what they had to do to those animals in order to make scenes work. I'm all for nostalgia but there are some things from your childhood best left behind.

[tyrantqueen]

I don't know what Milo and Otis is, sounds like some kind of Disney thing

As for the toys, I like the Gorgosaurus. I'd pick it up for its beauty alone.

"The Adventures of Milo and Otis" was originally a Japanese movie about a farm cat who gets lost (Milo) and his pug dog friend (Otis) ventures off to find him. It was released in 1986 and took four years to make. It was filmed entirely using live animals and was eventually edited for western audiences and dubbed over in English by English actor Dudley Moore. He not only narrated the movie but did the voices of all the animals. I loved the movie as a kid and I believe it was well received by critics. My wife recently bought it on DVD but I honestly don't want to watch it because to me it looks like animal cruelty now that I'm an adult and can understand those concepts. There are scenes where the cat is floating down a river in a box, the dog fights a bear, the cat is mobbed by birds and falls off a cliff into the ocean. They say no animals were harmed but I've read they used something like 30 cats and I'm sure none of them enjoyed the process.

I see. It doesn't sound like my kind of film, honestly.

Nope, if you're an adult watching it for the first time there is not much enjoyment to take away from it. You just end up thinking about what they had to do to those animals in order to make scenes work. I'm all for nostalgia but there are some things from your childhood best left behind.

I don't like films with animals doing "funny" things and with human voices dubbed over them for entertainment. I just find them fake and cheesy, personally. I used to watch "Homeward Bound" as a kid, and liked it. But I can't bear to watch that movie nowadays, it's just so full of cheese that it is uncomfortable.

Btw, this reminds of me of "Tales of the Riverbank", a British show narrated by Johnny Morris.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7CixcgLyO0

[Hermes888]

I like those figures (even the feathered ones, despite the fact that they look completely inorganic), but that plush is butt-ugly. Of course I'll put it down - into the trash.
Anyone ordering them to see what they are? Maybe put a review up on the Dinosaur Toy Blog? I'd be interested, but the shipping would be painful for me.

[scallenger]

I think these cutesy names just further confirm that they will indeed do voices of their thoughts and other narration of the type, like Milo and Otis as mentioned. I'm a bit disappointed that this is indeed the route they have chosen, but I understand their reasons. I guess kids these days really wouldn't find traditional narration appealing, like the original Walking With Dinosaurs. Again, this film really is "in name only".

All the same, as long as none of the dinos lips move to form words... I'll still be excited for this film. It seems to be getting more promotion, too. I saw a LARGE cardboard standee of the same poster I got the other day at one of my nearby movie theaters today. So I would expect more promotion in the coming months. Has anyone seen the trailer play in the theater before a film yet? I haven't, but then again I haven't seen many films that would probably have shown it (kids films, most likely).

[Balaur]

Just to be clear from the blog post on Everything Dinosaur, what exactly was the budget for the original Walking with Dinosaurs? I've heard it was 6 million pounds, and 9 million dollars, but is that nesseserally true. Just of comparw and constart to the movie and series.

[SpartanSquat]

Hey guys! Good news. USA Today confirmed more details and images of the movie!
For years, dinosaurs like T-Rex have ruled children's imaginations and movie screens, in films such as Jurassic Park.

Now it's time for Pachyrhinosaurus to lumber into the limelight in the live-action film Walking With Dinosaurs: The 3-D Movie (out Dec. 20).

The film is the big-screen follow-up to the 1999, BBC-produced television series of the same name which won three Emmys, including one for visual effects.

Using even more advanced computer-graphics technology, WWD follows the herbivorous creature known for the large bony frill on its head and its pronounced bumpy nose (its name is derived from Greek for "thick-nosed lizard").

"This is Pachyrhinosaurus' chance to shine. It's an ornate and just phenomenal creature," says paleontologist Scott Sampson, the host and science adviser of the PBS series Dinosaur Train who advised on the film. "A lot of other dinosaurs haven't had the exposure that T. Rex or Triceratops get. So it's nice to see some others become part of the dinosaur iconography."

WWD serves as a window into the latter part of the Cretaceous period, about 70 million years ago and some four million years before Tyrannosaurus rex made its entrance. Don't expect encounters with humans, who hadn't yet appeared.

"If you want to understand the age of the dinosaur, you can not do better than to focus on this time period which we know more about than any other in the entire age of dinosaurs," says Sampson. "So we're able to reconstruct things with more detail. And we watch the dinosaurs do their thing and live their lives."

The film features three Pachyrhinosauruses (Patchi, his brother Scowler and a female called Juniper) living in what is now the Arctic Circle but which then had a temperate climate, similar to Seattle's. It follows the three from hatchlings to adulthood, through the herd's mass migrations and as Patchi becomes the herd leader.

"The issues change from preventing getting stepped on by a massive armored dinosaur or ending up in another dinosaur's gullet, to the males growing up and competing for mates," says Sampson. "So it gives you the scope of the dinosaurs' behavior through their lives."

The story is told with the help of a narrator, Alex, one of the Alexornis birds, which have a symbiotic relationship with Pachyrhinosaurus. This is supplemented with in-the-moment voice-overs from the main characters "as if we are hearing their thoughts," says Barry Cook, who co-directed with Neil Nightingale.

The film has its predatory villain in Gorgon the Gorgosaurus, the smaller-bodied, faster relative of T. Rex with the "powerful jaws full of sharp teeth," says Cook.

Gorgosaurus has many encounters with the tough Pachyrhinosaurus and is also shown attacking the flying reptile Quetzalcoatlus, which has a wingspan similar to a Cessna aircraft.

The filmmakers searched the globe for the right background environment to depict the landscape of the time, eventually settling on Alaska and an island off New Zealand. The computer-graphic dinosaurs were then placed in the scenery and animated.

Sampson says the advanced computer-graphics technology, along with the 3-D images on the big screen, will push the dinosaur action to a new level of close-up realism.

"Jurassic Park set a standard and completely wowed audiences" in 1993, says Sampson. "I truly believe Walking With Dinosaurs is the next quantum leap. It will transport people back in time living with these snorting, hunting, bleeding animals. It's an amazing experience."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/movies/2013/08/19/dinosaurs-walking-pachyrhinosaurus/2657587/

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

Sounds interesting..though I'm still not convinced about the narration and voice overs..I'll have to wait and see..but hey at least they don't have lips and are talking right ?

[scallenger]

So we have a narrator AND inside the head voiceovers? Please don't be cheesy... please don't be cheesy... please don't be cheesy...

[HD-man]

The story is told with the help of a narrator, Alex, one of the Alexornis birds, which have a symbiotic relationship with Pachyrhinosaurus. This is supplemented with in-the-moment voice-overs from the main characters "as if we are hearing their thoughts," says Barry Cook, who co-directed with Neil Nightingale.

Ah crap. Narration is 1 thing (At least it'll be in the 3rd person; Also, a symbiotic relationship explains why Alex is following the Pachyrhinosaurus herd), voice-overs are another. My main concern at this point (besides whether the DVD will have the option of turning off the narration/voice-overs) is whether WWD3D's voice-overs will be like those in Spirit (I.e. Infrequent & dignified/plain-spoken) or those in Speckles (I.e. Frequent & undignified/annoying).

[Hermes888]

The story is told with the help of a narrator, Alex, one of the Alexornis birds, which have a symbiotic relationship with Pachyrhinosaurus. This is supplemented with in-the-moment voice-overs from the main characters "as if we are hearing their thoughts," says Barry Cook, who co-directed with Neil Nightingale.

The film has its predatory villain in Gorgon the Gorgosaurus, the smaller-bodied, faster relative of T. Rex with the "powerful jaws full of sharp teeth," says Cook.

[tyrantqueen]

The story is told with the help of a narrator, Alex, one of the Alexornis birds, which have a symbiotic relationship with Pachyrhinosaurus. This is supplemented with in-the-moment voice-overs from the main characters "as if we are hearing their thoughts," says Barry Cook, who co-directed with Neil Nightingale.

The film has its predatory villain in Gorgon the Gorgosaurus, the smaller-bodied, faster relative of T. Rex with the "powerful jaws full of sharp teeth," says Cook.

Disappointing. I'll just watch it with the mute button turned on.

From now on I am going to call this film WWD:INO (Walking With Dinosaurs: In Name Only)

[Hermes888]

I kept hearing people talking about Speckles the Tarbosaurus so I went ahead and watched it.
I really, really, really hope Walking With Dinosaurs 3D never gets as bad as that did. Inaccuracies and anachronisms aside, the narration in that film, and storytelling in general was just painful. Speckles' child voice was especially grating to the ears. Having seeing Speckles, I worry how they may adapt Walking With Dinosaurs 3D to be more for children.
When I first saw the trailer for Walking With Dinosaurs 3D, I was expecting something along the lines of March of the Dinosaurs. In that program (by Impossible Pictures), the dinosaurs had names, but were still animals, not people in disguise. They never became overly anthropomorphized. But now that it's confirmed we can "hear the thoughts" of the dinosaurs in the film, I worry they may be taking the same route for Walking With Dinosaurs 3D.
The original series is the most influential television program on my life - it's what got me interested in prehistory. So seeing the film take such a turn really bothers me. I wouldn't mind it if it just weren't called Walking With Dinosaurs, it's just that it has big shoes to fill and I'm worried that it won't. I really wish Impossible Pictures worked on the upcoming film, it feels wrong without the original creators...

[Balaur]

Well, this slightly disappointing for me. I think I will actually like this film, just for tryingnto be as realistic as possible, the realistic looking dinosaurs, and the beautiful backdrops. However, I really hope the voice overs aren't cheesy. Everything else about the film (apart from TOTALLY NOT BEING WALKING WITH DINOSAURS) is fine, but I just hope the voice overs aren't bad. Its still not as annoying as talking dinosaur for me.

[scallenger]

I'm still hoping for the best. But it is just weird to me that the studio was apparently just NOT comfortable enough with just making this a straight documentary. Why not? Disney does it just fine every year with their re-packaged versions of Planet Earth and Oceans and Lions and etc. Sure, their versions of the narration lean a bit on the hokey side, but they never become "Milo and Otis", which is now what this version of WWD WILL be (or worse, that Tarbosaurus movie that was mentioned). It could still be charming and fun... but it definitely now adds a "for the kids" aspect that I don't think anyone here will really take as seriously now. Or even the kids, for that matter. I wasn't really THAT old when the original WWD came out. And I was ENTHRALLED with the experience. My parents were the ones actually bored with it, but me being an eager eye-opened kid for anything dinosaurs... I was just sucked into the world the documentary covered. And it's because it allowed you to be immersed. Either by NO narration or just the right amount by Kenneth Branagh. He felt informative and inviting. If the way the dialogue presented in this new WWD trailers is any indication... it will stand out and be in-your-face with whatever is going on on-screen. It's like the bad narration on Dinosaur Revolution... stating the obvious. What, are they going to have the narrators of the dinosaurs minds SCREAM when something scary happens on screen as the dinosaur itself roars?! Let's take bets now!

I'm sorry. It's just the more I think about it, the more I'm getting disappointed. I don't think it's going to be a train wreck at all. But I really don't think it will be the amazing and immersive experience the original show was. The episode on the Ornithochierus was one of the most heart-wrenching things ever. All only told through visuals, music, and a narrator that merely explained what the purpose of the events going on were. I doubt we will see anything like this in the new WWD without there being some kind of voice-over from the dinosaur exclaiming that they feel lonely, or hungry, or angry. And that is really a shame. Not only will it take viewers out of it... but in a way it makes the viewers out to be "dumb". Because even though I was just a kid when I saw the original WWD... I certainly didn't have to be told literally what the dinosaur was feeling. I guess it could have been worse... the worst being actual human characters in the time of the dinosaurs and/or having the dinosaurs actually talk. But just because we don't have the worst-case scenario doesn't make this a good one.

I really hope I am happily proven wrong by this film. We'll just see.

[Hermes888]

I was four years old when I first saw Walking With Dinosaurs on VHS. I would sit in front of the TV and watch the whole series (or rather half of it at a time, there was one tape for each half of the series), then I would rewind it and watch it again (multiple times). Once my parents saw how enthralled I was in the series, they encouraged my interest with more dinosaur documentaries and books. For that reason, Walking With Dinosaurs is the most influential piece of media on my life, as it sparked an interest in paleontology that I still have. Without it, I don't know what career I would've wanted to have pursued.
As a sixteen year-old now, I watch the original program and still enjoy it, nostalgia aside. I don't think any straight-up nature documentary needs to have an age range. I watched Sir David Attenborough's programs as a kid, and I still keep up-to-date with all of his recent programs. Planet Earth has some beautiful imagery that I think anyone - young or old - can enjoy.
That's why this film "adaption" is bothering me. I'd be thrilled if this film gets young children into paleontology (or science in general) like the original program did for me, but I don't feel it needs to pander to them. I think kids could enjoy the dinosaurs alone, the fact that they're gearing this at children is just limiting the audience.
Psychic dinosaur thought-reading aside, it bothers me that a specific Gorgosaurus has a name, because in nature there are no villains. It's not like they'll demonize the Pachyrhinosaurus for all the plants they mercilessly slaughter. If you do follow the life of a prey animal, then make the carnivores a hazard - a part of life - not a villain.
"One-Eye" from Speckles the Tarbosaurus was a time-travelling, teleporting, immortal Tyrannosaurus hell-bent on ruining Speckles' life, and that was just obnoxious. The Velociraptors in the film were suicidal, attacking Speckles (and promptly being killed by him) while completely ignoring the two very fresh carcasses of dinosaurs they just killed. Those kinds of behavior are just unreasonable, and there's no need for it.
No matter how nervous I am for the film, I know I'll still see it, probably on launch night. The animation and models look superb, and I do think it will be a spectacle to be seen in theaters. Maybe I'll have to bring sound-cancelling headphones in case the voices get too bad. If it went under a different name, I'd be psyched for the film. I just really wish that it wasn't called Walking With Dinosaurs.

[scallenger]

Nicely said, Hermes888. I do wish it would have just been called something else. I mean, there are literally no connections to the actual TV series. Not even the same narrator or music composer (god... I didn't even think about the music). But yeah... this audience pandering the studio is clearing aiming for just does not do anyone favors, even for the Paleontologist community. I mean, Disney pandered to the kid audience when they messed with "Dinosaur". Yeah, yeah... one could say "does EVERY good dinosaur movie need to appeal to adults and children alike?". No, clearly. Otherwise a film like "Land Before Time" wouldn't have all the sequels it does for the kids that clearly enjoy that series. But do you know ANYONE who got into paleontology because of those kind of films? I didn't think so. Movies like the first Jurassic Park and the TV "Walking With..." series (all of them, not just the Dinosaur ones) were able to tap into the imagination and expand our minds without pandering. If any film is trying to truly "educate" while being entertaining, they need to all follow that trend. Otherwise, it may be good... but it won't be something significant, and most likely, glossed over.

Again, sorry if my words seem overly pessimistic... I just can't help myself. I guess I just feel like I have been down this road before...

[Hermes888]

Scallenger, I completely understand the pessimism. If you think the film is going to be a failure, then either you're right and you saw it coming, or it's good and you're pleasantly surprised. If you get your hopes up for it, and it is bad, then you're in for a severe disappointment.

TyrantQueen is right, this film should be called Walking With Dinosaurs: In Name Only. Is BBC even involved with it at all?

[Balaur]

Scallenger, I completely understand the pessimism. If you think the film is going to be a failure, then either you're right and you saw it coming, or it's good and you're pleasantly surprised. If you get your hopes up for it, and it is bad, then you're in for a severe disappointment.

TyrantQueen is right, this film should be called Walking With Dinosaurs: In Name Only. Is BBC even involved with it at all?

Yes. BBC Earth teamed up with Evergreen Fipms, so the BBC is involved.

[SpartanSquat]

New poster

[Balaur]

I finally got through my head that this is not a movie version of Walking with Dinosaurs, and now because of that, I actually am not that frustrated. However, My lips are  until the movie comes out to really know.

Still, that new poster reminds me of The Lorax for some reason. (Don't ask why)

And I just thought, how many people are going to think that that Gorgosaurus is a Tyrannosaurus? I actually won't be that mad, because Gorgosaurus to the uneducated eye does look like T.rex, but I'll be mad when the children or people in the theatre say that it is T.rex even after it is stated over and over to be a Gorgosaurus. That happened once when I went to the WWD Arena Spectacular a few years ago, some kids was saying "look an T-rex!" When it was already stated as a Allosaurus more than once.

Oh, wait, did I go off topic just now?