I'm not much of a fan of the Walking With... series/Dinosaur Planet/When Dinosaurs Roamed America documentary format. (And don't get me started on the Chased by... and Prehistoric Park stuff.) The visuals are ok and it's hard to say no to reconstructions of some of my favorite prehistoric creatures, but most of the time I just end up being bored. I want to know about the science and hear what paleontologists have to say, not see a "Just so story," and I'm sorry to say that the IMAX film Sea Monsters falls into the same, dull storytelling mode.
The film starts out with a group of "paleontologists" riding towards a part of the Niobrara chalk (or at least that's what I picked up from the scripted banter). I put paleontologists in quotes because the trio look like they're on their way to Target, not to a dig, and the scene isn't at all authentic. In fact, a similar lack of authenticity mars most of the film's historical reenactments, a perfectly squared-off replica of a Xiphactinus in one scene looking like it had just been dragged to some spot in Kansas and plopped onto the ground. Most of these scenes only exist to drive the plot of the story, though, often as the proof that one kind of creature ate another. It's good to show the fossil evidence for reconstructions but I really would have liked to see some actual paleontologists talk about real fossils rather than see actors brush off fiberglass replicas.
The majority of the film, however, deals with the life of a female Dolichorhynchops, the journey of the plesiosaur from the shallows to the open ocean introducing the viewer to various other Cretaceous "sea monsters." The marine reptiles look great, far better than any other prehistoric CGI creatures I've seen on television. The animated creatures move with a fluidity and smoothness that I imagine would be even more impressive on a real IMAX screen, but by the 20-minute mark I was bored. Other than briefly cutting away to mention the fossilized stomach contents of one particular creature or another most of the film consists of introducing a new sea monster and having it eat another. It just couldn't hold my attention.
If you were hoping that the full diversity of marine reptiles would get some attention in this documentary you will be disappointed. Dolichorhynchops, Tylosaurus and the shark Cretoxyrhina get the most screen time with Platecarpus, Styxosaurus (h/t to Mark in the comments), and Archelon making cameos. A very brief scene about the history of marine reptiles throws in a few more (I don't recall the term "evolution" being used, although it is implied) but if you want ichthyosaurs, marine crocodiles, nothosaurs, pliosaurs, or placodonts this movie will leave you wanting. As I said, though, the menagerie they did create looked absolutely wonderful, definitely setting the bar high for successors.
Maybe I just have a different opinion of what a good documentary should be, but as a kid some of the best parts of any film about ancient life involved screen time for paleontologists. I got to see that there were people out there really doing the work and trying to figure out the natural history of these animals, and people like Phil Currie and Bob Bakker radiated enough enthusiasm for the subject that it made me want to be a paleontologist all the more. Visually dazzling the audience is good but if we don't make the most of that moment to teach a little or explain how we know what we know in a compelling way then it's all just a bunch of special effects. There may be other recent documentaries that do a better job of mixing reconstructions with science, I don't have any way to watch television so I haven't been able to keep up, but I am a bit tired of the Walking With... format.
Life Science
Comments
Too true, but as an animator myself, I have to say their CGI was, for the most part, top notch.
Oh, and the Rhodes/Evans/Gabriel soundtrack did rock a little harder than your average "Walking with"...
Posted by: Jason Failes | June 25, 2008 9:36 AM
I actually really enjoyed this documentary, largely because I love Michael J. Everhart's 'Oceans of Kansas' book and website so much and this was essentially a flim version of both. It was nice to see these animals reconstructed as some, like Dolichorhynchops and Protosphyraena, had never (to my knowledge) been animated before and it was good to see them in action. As Jason said, the animation is really top-notch...somebody definately did their homework, particularly with the Mosasaurs, which moved and manuvered very much like modern snakes and varanids. However, I must agree that some interviews with various paleontologists would have been nice and the acting during the reenactments left a bit to be desired. Still, for the record I loved it and it certainly fared better than most of the 'Walking with..' series.
By the way, the long-necked plesiosaur to which you are referring was Styxosaurus.
Posted by: Mark Mancini | June 25, 2008 9:45 AM
I wish for once they would make this stuff in Attenborough style.
Posted by: Ville Sinkkonen | June 25, 2008 9:47 AM
I don't know 'bout Attenborough. For some reason, I happen to be completely ungripped (in the Red Dwarf sense) by what I've seen of his.
Visually stunning, but it just always seems to go on and on for too long before he says the next important fact.
As for Walking With..., I do find that I prefer Allosaurus and Walking with Beasts on DVD because the documentaries on the making of, with plenty of interviews with paleontologists, are extensive and long, almost as long as the actual show. The pathology of the bones of "Big Al", showing the facts that guided them into writing the story they did for the real show, is (as you say) certainly more interesting than the show itself.
Really, that's how it should work: the two go together, combining the fictionalized story with the facts that guided them in writing it.
One of my fav documentaries recently was on the "Snowball Earth" concept. Regardless of whether it finally holds up or not, the documentary was excellent in presenting the theory, how it fit what evidence was available, and how each department of science, from climatologists and geologists and biologists, each had their say on things that might disprove it. And most importantly, how those suggestions led to NEW tests that could refine or dispute the theory (and how, up to that point, it had passed all those tests).
In short, the best single-subject example of how the scientific process actually works in real life, while still being fascinating and full of interesting people talking.
In the end, I don't care if "snowball earth" eventually falls away as a false lead - the point was how the *process* might lead to that conclusion. That it wasn't enough just to throw some fancy numbers around - the numbers proposed had to lead to a new test to see if they really hold up and have meaning, which is what really separates science research from pseudo-scientific ravings.
Posted by: Joe Shelby | June 25, 2008 12:30 PM
I, too, would like to see an Attenborough-esque take on prehistoric life. The Walking With series is overly dramatic and oftentimes feels forced. Beasts was the best of the series in terms of accuracy and tone. Monsters was awful. Dinosaurs was good, but not as good as you remember. It was revolutionary for the time, but it's hard to watch today.
I'm gonna give this IMAX film a rent. I love marine reptiles, although, like Brian, I wish they'd included more critters. Specifically placodonts, which are awesome.
Posted by: Zach Miller | June 25, 2008 2:34 PM
Zach, Attenborough did his own attempt on prehistoric life with his 70ies "Life on Earth" series. Of course the animations weren't overly fancy back then and the science is a little outdated. Still an fascinating series I enjoyed watching.
Posted by: nn | June 26, 2008 5:12 AM
I love seeing film depictions of fossil animals and their environments, but I do get annoyed that so many of the storylines involve chases, fights, narrow escapes, and getting eaten. I get as bored with that stuff as I do with shows that rely too much on car chases and explosions (I've been told that in current parlance this means that I don't like "guy films," an insulting concept in itself). An Attenborough presentation of paleo life would be interesting.
Posted by: deang | June 26, 2008 5:19 PM