I believe that is possible but I still think it should have been tied into those reasons. Without some explanation it isn't educational but merely entertaining. I think making science entertaining is a good thing but ... you have to keep some science in there, some educational focus.
"infotainment." i agree, really. the issue that started it was the lack of actual depiction of the science behind the theories. i've seen a ton of documentaries that do this. this one got popular because it was easily digested, i think.
Walking in cold all I saw was one unsupported assumption after another without any way to know what the conclusions were based on or how they were arrived at.
well, i don't really pay that mush attention to the actual scientific end of things anymore, but not much of it was new to me. i understood how we arrive at reconstructions, how musculature and posture is determined, and even how some behaviour gets preserved. we can tell for instance that some dinosaurs (like hadrosaurs and ceratopsians) hatched and nurtured their young, and we can tell that others (like ceolophysis) ate them.
And much of it is still best guess approximation. Later finds may call some or much of it into question.
well, there is always debate, and things are always questioned. this, of course, is a little different than just making shit up.
I've no problem with that but it shouldn't be presented as if that was the way it was.
probably not, but hey, it sold well!
The interesting part should not the King Kong aspect but rather how do you study these things, how do you develop the evidence and the conclusions. Beyond entertainment what did that series accomplish? It's not like dinos are endangered. They don't need friendly press. They're already extinct.
lol, true, true.
אָרַח