PREHISTORIC PLANET

[paintingdinos]

I think you guys are projecting/reading into "THAT final gesture" in both videos WAY too much

I'm not projecting anything

I shared my impression of the promo. My impression is that the behavior of the father Rex to the infant (the nudge specifically, which I've already stated as being what I was talking about with my comment) wasn't presented in a way I found realistic. The plover video is a great example of what an animal might do in that situation - there is no threat, they get up, they move away. Maybe you can show me a video of an animal that isn't a highly social, extremely intelligent mammal nudging its offspring toward a startling but non-threatening stimulus to teach that there is no threat. I'm happy to be wrong if it means I get to learn something. To be clear, I never stated that animals don't nuzzle or show physical affection to their young.

And, of course, you don't have to agree with me. Its ok.

[HD-man]

I'm not projecting anything

I shared my impression of the promo. My impression is that the behavior of the father Rex to the infant (the nudge specifically, which I've already stated as begin what I was talking about with my comment) wasn't presented in a way I found realistic.

That's basically the definition of "projecting" as used in this context (I.e. "to attribute (one's own ideas, feelings, or characteristics) to other people or to objects": https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/project ). More specifically, it seems like you feel that nudging of that sort means something specific based on what you've previously seen/experienced (E.g. "his nudge will teach the child to conquer its fear") & are projecting that feeling onto the T. rex video. I'm not saying that's definitely what's happening, just what it seems like based on your posts.

Maybe you can show me a video of an animal that isn't a highly social, extremely intelligent mammal nudging its offspring toward a startling but non-threatening stimulus to teach that there is no threat.

I basically already did that w/the plover video (I.e. 1st, the chick runs to the adult for safety; Then, after an initial nuzzle, the parent forcefully sees them off). Yes, plovers are probably more intelligent than T. rex were, but that general behavior seems to apply to all kinds of birds. Also, it doesn't look like the adult T. rex nudges the chick toward the stimulus so much as away from himself (especially given how far away from them the stimulus is at that point).

To be clear, I never stated that animals don't nuzzle or show physical affection to their young.

& I never stated that you did otherwise.

[paintingdinos]

That's basically the definition of "projecting" as used in this context (I.e. "to attribute (one's own ideas, feelings, or characteristics) to other people or to objects": https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/project ). More specifically, it seems like you feel that nudging of that sort means something specific based on what you've previously seen/experienced (E.g. "his nudge will teach the child to conquer its fear") & are projecting that feeling onto the T. rex video. I'm not saying that's definitely what's happening, just what it seems like based on your posts.

Ok cool because I was reading it as the very common way "projecting" is often use AKA "to believe or imagine that (one's ideas, feelings, etc.) are shared by (another person)".
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/project%20onto#:~:text=Definition%20of%20project%20onto,projected%20her%20fears%20onto%20him.

Glad we're now clear since that wasn't what I was doing given that I didn't expect anyone to feel the same as me.

Anyway, excited to eventually see this show and see what ultimately comes of it. Nothing more to discuss here for me. 

[HD-man]

I know not everyone here can speak spanish, but I really like this analysis of the "TEASER + CLIP": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T65p78GAZIQ&t=1s

[Gwangi]

While that is a valid argument to be made, it's always worth remembering that big companies are not your friends, and you shouldn't give them money purely out of guilt. Support products and services if they are practical for your life and you're in a good position to do so, otherwise, that subscription fee is better off going to smaller companies or content creators. Apple isn't exactly operating this streaming service to put food on the table.

There. Stop. What I bolded is all that needs to be said. The production of this documentary provides jobs. Jobs to people I support. Darren Naish, Gabriel Ugueto, David Krentz, David Attenborough, and countless others. This isn't about lining Apple's pockets, it's about supporting the kind of work you want to see more of, it's about supporting the people involved in its creation in the hopes that we see more content like it with their involvement. Apple will make the largest profit, for sure, but they will also take notice if people are subscribing just to stream this documentary. And then other streaming services take notice, and it's a snowball effect that if it works can only mean good things for the likes of us. We've talked about the death of quality documentaries on this site for years and now we're finally getting what we've been longing for. I'm not going to steal it and I'm going to encourage others not to as well.

I fully agree with everything you say.

@Gwangi thank you and I fully agree with you.
This is exactly the kind of negative attitude that really turns me off. Does everything now have to have something negative?
No need to be judgmental and even shaming those who are excited about this film and support it. Seriously.

I don't see how anything I say was doing that?

I'm very excited, and this show looks incredibly promising. I just wanted to provide a counter point to the argument in favour of purchasing a service just to watch one program. Not everyone has the means for this to be a reasonable purchase, nor is everyone willing to put aside the fact that it's tied to yet another mega company streaming service that they may not want more of in their life. You would likely do more to support the production of future such programs by writing or recording reviews and sharing them, and you can donate to most of the artists involved directly or otherwise support their personal projects.

If you cannot afford the streaming service, or have a moral objection to it, that does not give you an excuse to illegally download the series. Seems like you're trying to make a justification for it, there is none. Buy it on DVD when/if it's released and when/if you can afford it. Although that would still give money to Apple. Honestly I didn't think suggesting people not to illegally download Prehistoric Planet would bring forth any kind of backlash, but here we are. How naive of me. 

[Dynomikegojira]

While that is a valid argument to be made, it's always worth remembering that big companies are not your friends, and you shouldn't give them money purely out of guilt. Support products and services if they are practical for your life and you're in a good position to do so, otherwise, that subscription fee is better off going to smaller companies or content creators. Apple isn't exactly operating this streaming service to put food on the table.

There. Stop. What I bolded is all that needs to be said. The production of this documentary provides jobs. Jobs to people I support. Darren Naish, Gabriel Ugueto, David Krentz, David Attenborough, and countless others. This isn't about lining Apple's pockets, it's about supporting the kind of work you want to see more of, it's about supporting the people involved in its creation in the hopes that we see more content like it with their involvement. Apple will make the largest profit, for sure, but they will also take notice if people are subscribing just to stream this documentary. And then other streaming services take notice, and it's a snowball effect that if it works can only mean good things for the likes of us. We've talked about the death of quality documentaries on this site for years and now we're finally getting what we've been longing for. I'm not going to steal it and I'm going to encourage others not to as well.

I fully agree with everything you say.

@Gwangi thank you and I fully agree with you.
This is exactly the kind of negative attitude that really turns me off. Does everything now have to have something negative?
No need to be judgmental and even shaming those who are excited about this film and support it. Seriously.

I don't see how anything I say was doing that?

I'm very excited, and this show looks incredibly promising. I just wanted to provide a counter point to the argument in favour of purchasing a service just to watch one program. Not everyone has the means for this to be a reasonable purchase, nor is everyone willing to put aside the fact that it's tied to yet another mega company streaming service that they may not want more of in their life. You would likely do more to support the production of future such programs by writing or recording reviews and sharing them, and you can donate to most of the artists involved directly or otherwise support their personal projects.

If you cannot afford the streaming service, or have a moral objection to it, that does not give you an excuse to illegally download the series. Seems like you're trying to make a justification for it, there is none. Buy it on DVD when/if it's released and when/if you can afford it. Although that would still give money to Apple. Honestly I didn't think suggesting people not to illegally download Prehistoric Planet would bring forth any kind of backlash, but here we are. How naive of me. 

Completely agree with Gwangi here the best thing to do when it comes to this show and potential others from various other platforms is to officially support the show because guess what we all at the end of the day give money to big corporations anyway. Want more premium dinosaur content in the future than either then either get the free 7 day trial or subscribe until it's finished show them there legitimate interest in this type of content and other platforms will also take notice like Discovery who is now in the process of acquiring WarnerMedia that has a lot of resources to deliver great paleo related content if they chose to do so and any illegal download is lost revenue that this show could make and cause Apple and others to not put the kind of money for series like this and then we're stuck with the Jurassic films even though I enjoy them.

[stargatedalek]

If you cannot afford the streaming service, or have a moral objection to it, that does not give you an excuse to illegally download the series. Seems like you're trying to make a justification for it, there is none. Buy it on DVD when/if it's released and when/if you can afford it. Although that would still give money to Apple. Honestly I didn't think suggesting people not to illegally download Prehistoric Planet would bring forth any kind of backlash, but here we are. How naive of me. 

If you pirate for political or necessity reasons, there's your justification. We're in late stage capitalism, a recession, and a housing crisis. Entertainment (broadly) is not a luxury, it is genuinely needed escapism for many people who can't afford it. Escapism improves peoples lives and makes it possible to weather hardships, both external and internal, and saying people don't have the right of access because they lack the "green freedom rectangles" bothers me.

And this is educational media, so I am doubley politically invested in believing everyone should have access. When I was growing up we had access to DVD and VHS tapes at libraries, but streaming services are deliberately keeping programs out of public libraries, preventing broader viewership. Being able to get nature documentaries from the library is what helped me break out of conditioning I was raised in and realize the value of science, everything else was curated by church or family, scenes mentioning evolution were censored and things like that.

If Apple, Disney+, Netflix, and whoever else don't want us pirating their programs, they need to drop the exclusivity bull and do actual physical media releases, and as more than expensive novelty collectors editions, so they can appear in libraries.

People should pay if they are in a good position to do so. But I'm not going to judge someone for pirating it, as there are plenty of legitimate reasons for doing so.

[Gwangi]

If you cannot afford the streaming service, or have a moral objection to it, that does not give you an excuse to illegally download the series. Seems like you're trying to make a justification for it, there is none. Buy it on DVD when/if it's released and when/if you can afford it. Although that would still give money to Apple. Honestly I didn't think suggesting people not to illegally download Prehistoric Planet would bring forth any kind of backlash, but here we are. How naive of me. 

If you pirate for political or necessity reasons, there's your justification. We're in late stage capitalism, a recession, and a housing crisis. Entertainment (broadly) is not a luxury, it is genuinely needed escapism for many people who can't afford it. Escapism improves peoples lives and makes it possible to weather hardships, both external and internal, and saying people don't have the right of access because they lack the "green freedom rectangles" bothers me.

And this is educational media, so I am doubley politically invested in believing everyone should have access. When I was growing up we had access to DVD and VHS tapes at libraries, but streaming services are deliberately keeping programs out of public libraries, preventing broader viewership. Being able to get nature documentaries from the library is what helped me break out of conditioning I was raised in and realize the value of science, everything else was curated by church or family, scenes mentioning evolution were censored and things like that.

If Apple, Disney+, Netflix, and whoever else don't want us pirating their programs, they need to drop the exclusivity bull and do actual physical media releases, and as more than expensive novelty collectors editions, so they can appear in libraries.

People should pay if they are in a good position to do so. But I'm not going to judge someone for pirating it, as there are plenty of legitimate reasons for doing so.

You're doing a lot of mental gymnastics there to justify stealing something you can watch with a free trial or $5 subscription fee. I stand by everything I said, the people that worked on this program deserve to get paid for their work. The program needed "green freedom rectangles" to exist. The people that made it need "green freedom rectangles" to survive. I swear, I think you just argue for the sake of arguing. Nullum Gratuitum Prandium.

[Stegotyranno420]

How did this turn from people of the forum finally being United by how much they love this documentary to a political economical ethics debate.
We cannot stay calm these days...

[Dusty Wren]

It is truly bizarre to argue that people are entitled to entertainment, but that the people who create that entertainment aren't entitled to be paid for their work.

[Mellow Stego]

If you cannot afford the streaming service, or have a moral objection to it, that does not give you an excuse to illegally download the series. Seems like you're trying to make a justification for it, there is none. Buy it on DVD when/if it's released and when/if you can afford it. Although that would still give money to Apple. Honestly I didn't think suggesting people not to illegally download Prehistoric Planet would bring forth any kind of backlash, but here we are. How naive of me. 

If you pirate for political or necessity reasons, there's your justification. We're in late stage capitalism, a recession, and a housing crisis. Entertainment (broadly) is not a luxury, it is genuinely needed escapism for many people who can't afford it. Escapism improves peoples lives and makes it possible to weather hardships, both external and internal, and saying people don't have the right of access because they lack the "green freedom rectangles" bothers me.

And this is educational media, so I am doubley politically invested in believing everyone should have access. When I was growing up we had access to DVD and VHS tapes at libraries, but streaming services are deliberately keeping programs out of public libraries, preventing broader viewership. Being able to get nature documentaries from the library is what helped me break out of conditioning I was raised in and realize the value of science, everything else was curated by church or family, scenes mentioning evolution were censored and things like that.

If Apple, Disney+, Netflix, and whoever else don't want us pirating their programs, they need to drop the exclusivity bull and do actual physical media releases, and as more than expensive novelty collectors editions, so they can appear in libraries.

People should pay if they are in a good position to do so. But I'm not going to judge someone for pirating it, as there are plenty of legitimate reasons for doing so.

I understand what you're saying but it doesn't justifies theft. That's just morally wrong.
If you truly feel against streaming of media then just don't watch it. Wait until it hits a medium you want to support.

Standing against something but still seeking the products it offers doesn't mean you have a moral high ground.

[Mellow Stego]

Double post

[Gwangi]

Looking at this another way. I could justify stealing my dinosaur toys that I cannot afford because they're produced by a corporation that makes a lot of money and has some to spare. Mattel, Safari, and CollectA are not my friends. They make their products out of fossil fuels and underpay their workers, so that justifies stealing their products. Since their products make me happy it's alright too, because happiness shouldn't be a luxury. I'm sticking it to the man and still getting what I want. It's a win-win. 

Seems hypocritical to endorse theft from a corporation in a community made up of people that collect products made by corporations. Also seems hypocritical for a person that collects these products made by corporations to take the moral high ground against another corporation that's producing a product.

[stargatedalek]

It is truly bizarre to argue that people are entitled to entertainment, but that the people who create that entertainment aren't entitled to be paid for their work.

They got paid when they did the work, and potentially again if the program was licensed but not produced by Apple. Sales from that point go to the streaming service. Buying a subscription is not directly supporting the creators or staff of the program.

Looking at this another way. I could justify stealing my dinosaur toys that I cannot afford because they're produced by a corporation that makes a lot of money and has some to spare. Mattel, Safari, and CollectA are not my friends. They make their products out of fossil fuels and underpay their workers, so that justifies stealing their products. Since their products make me happy it's alright too, because happiness shouldn't be a luxury. I'm sticking it to the man and still getting what I want. It's a win-win. 

Seems hypocritical to endorse theft from a corporation in a community made up of people that collect products made by corporations. Also seems hypocritical for a person that collects these products made by corporations to take the moral high ground against another corporation that's producing a product.

Paying for things is good, people should pay for things if they are in a good position to do so. But digital goods are fundamentally different from physical goods. When you purchase stolen or bootlegged goods you are directly supporting people, practices, and companies, that hurt the products you care about. There might still be situations where someone feels like that's a worthwhile trade-off, bootlegs of rare out of production things they can't find the original of, for example.

But pirated digital goods are not a reward to a bad actor, rather a lack of reward to the publisher (who may or may not be paying part of that back to the original creator[s ]).

Whether that's moral or not depends on the person doing it and their standards and situation, but it is a fundamentally different situation from purchasing stolen goods.

[Gwangi]

Paying for things is good, people should pay for things if they are in a good position to do so. But digital goods are fundamentally different from physical goods. When you purchase stolen or bootlegged goods you are directly supporting people, practices, and companies, that hurt the products you care about. There might still be situations where someone feels like that's a worthwhile trade-off, bootlegs of rare out of production things they can't find the original of, for example.

But pirated digital goods are not a reward to a bad actor, rather a lack of reward to the publisher (who may or may not be paying part of that back to the original creator[s ]).

Whether that's moral or not depends on the person doing it and their standards and situation, but it is a fundamentally different situation from purchasing stolen goods.

Sounds like more mental gymnastics to justify theft, to me. Anyone can come up with a an excuse to steal something, dress up pretty under the guise of rebellion, or justice, or necessity, but it still just boils down to being theft. At the very least, viewing Prehistoric Planet as it was intended, within the streaming service that supported its creation, encourages more products like it. If Prehistoric Planet fails to garner viewers (and pirates don't count) it could be a long while before we get anything like it again, and I don't want that.

[Carnoking]

Not trying to take a side with this statement, but let's not forget there are always more ways we can show our support for these (and more!) artists!

If, for whatever reason, you don't want to stream this series (I for one intend to), you can always put that money towards prints, kits, or other such works from the incredible folks who worked on the show. Of course this could very possibly involve more money than 5 dollars needed to just stream the show, but it does go a long way in keeping these artists working while cutting out the middle man of AppleTV if you see fit.

Likewise, for those who do stream the show, we can always take it a step further by doing the same and finding ways to support the artists directly instead of just relying on the sales of the streaming service to guarantee them work in the future. Plus, I don't know if they necessarily get residuals for this sort of thing  Maybe, but then again, I'm no lawyer for AppleTV negotiating their contracts.

Personally, I'd love to get some prints of their original concept art if possible, or even an entire coffee table book going through their design process for each species! Definitely something I would buy if the series really wows me.

Just some food for thought!

[stargatedalek]

Sounds like more mental gymnastics to justify theft, to me. Anyone can come up with a an excuse to steal something, dress up pretty under the guise of rebellion, or justice, or necessity, but it still just boils down to being theft. At the very least, viewing Prehistoric Planet as it was intended, within the streaming service that supported its creation, encourages more products like it. If Prehistoric Planet fails to garner viewers (and pirates don't count) it could be a long while before we get anything like it again, and I don't want that.

And purchasing a whole streaming subscription, just for one program, on the hope they would be willing to produce more if it got enough views, isn't mental gymnastics? Vote with your wallet sure, but high enough up and these companies often don't even look at watch numbers for individual programs, they look at broader industry trends and sponsor a few "novel" projects on the side to add a generic label of variety to their platform.

Genuinely, buying a Curiosity Stream or Nebula subscription might actually be more likely to influence Apple to make more documentaries. Large companies hate introspection as a rule, but other, even if much smaller, platforms able to sustain themselves entirely on educational programming, well, that leaves an impression.

Personally, I'd love to get some prints of their original concept art if possible, or even an entire coffee table book going through their design process for each species! Definitely something I would buy if the series really wows me.

Very much this! I remember similar books existing for the Walking with programs.

[Psittacoraptor]

@stargatedalek Look, I'm very critical of the corporate capitalist system, and all the exploitation and inequalities it created and maintains, but the fact of the matter is that this documentary series only exists because a rich corporation paid for it. No public broadcaster is going to spend millions to fund a big budget dinosaur documentary, as evidenced by the lack of any such production for a very long time. I couldn't care less about Apple's profits or shares being impacted by piracy, but I think people who care about productions like this being made should support it, be it via a subscription or a free (!) trial. Yes, you can just watch on a free trial, provided you haven't had a free trial previously.

Streaming providers don't care about reviews or donations to artists, they care about subscriptions and viewer counts. Hence, the only way to send the message that you want to see more content like this is by streaming it via a subscription or trial. That's just how this game goes. Physical media for film is dead, even more so than for music, the business model is completely different now.

[Dusty Wren]

It is truly bizarre to argue that people are entitled to entertainment, but that the people who create that entertainment aren't entitled to be paid for their work.

They got paid when they did the work, and potentially again if the program was licensed but not produced by Apple. Sales from that point go to the streaming service. Buying a subscription is not directly supporting the creators or staff of the program.

Streaming services only continue to pay for programs that get good numbers and draw in new subscribers. Programs that underperform are quickly axed--look at how many shows Netflix has canceled in the past year. Animation studios may get paid for an individual project, but their ability to keep their doors open (and for their animators and other creatives to continue to pay rent) depends on someone being willing to pay for the next project, and the next project, and so on.

My friends in the animation industry work contract to contract, meaning their job can evaporate from under them at any moment, and it often does. And yes, this is a fault of the way steaming services and studios hire and pay creatives; I'm not here to defend the entertainment industry. But it's self-serving to assume that the only outcome is a lack of reward to the publisher. A publisher that doesn't see the results they want to see recoups their loss in whatever way they can. Usually by cutting off the people doing the work.

[bmathison1972]

Capitalism = quality

Capitalism sure has its downfalls, but you wouldn't have high quality broadcasts (or high quality dinosaur toys) in a socialistic society. There is no incentive to go above-and-beyond when you won't get rewarded any more than the lazy schmuck standing next to you. (China may be an exception to this, but their market functions more as a capitalistic one)

Capitalism forces companies to produce better and better quality in the competitive market it creates.

Hence there are no major companies producing high quality animal toys in Canada (wink wink)