• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Animal Planet "Dragons"???

Suezoled said:

Some people don't just leave it to the TV to teach their kids things; they use it as an opportunity to explore what is real and what is not, themselves.
Click to expand...

yeah, and some people have a huge problem with other people because they are homeopaths and that problem obviously transcends to any other discussion.


"Some people don't just leave it to the TV to teach their kids things"

what kind of rude comment is that?? You obviously can't get past the fact that I am a homeopath - it colors all your posts towards me, so why even bother?
 
Barbrae said:
yeah, and some people have a huge problem with other people because they are homeopaths and that problem obviously transcends to any other discussion.


"Some people don't just leave it to the TV to teach their kids things"

what kind of rude comment is that?? You obviously can't get past the fact that I am a homeopath - it colors all your posts towards me, so why even bother?
Click to expand...

Oh don't flatter yourself. It's not all about you.
 
Barbrae said:
yeah, and some people have a huge problem with other people because they are homeopaths and that problem obviously transcends to any other discussion.


"Some people don't just leave it to the TV to teach their kids things"

what kind of rude comment is that?? You obviously can't get past the fact that I am a homeopath - it colors all your posts towards me, so why even bother?
Click to expand...

Oh, so we have to refrain from commenting on any lack of insights JUST because you believe in things like homeopathy?

You're the only one still harping on how you think the show was intentionally misleading the minds of children, or at least one 11 year old in particular. You didn't relish the chance to point out the cues in the titles or point her towards the web site?

Instead of whining about people "picking on you", why don't you tell us what you did to help the 11 year old?

Or do you just want somebody to bad mouth the show along with you some more? That would be productive.

I'm trying, digging, to find some sort of respect for you Barb, but It's tough when all you post is "but the show, but the show!", and "you all are just being mean (not totally agreeing and patting me on the head) to me cause I'm a homeopath".

What? You tring to be some sort of Martyr or something?

We've posted reasons as to why they presented the show as they did. If you don't agree, just say so and move on.
Oh, she isn't "dumb" either - just a normal kid, and like most normal kids who saw the show she believed what they presented as real.
Click to expand...

The point is that the kid missed some cues and you and/or others were there to help the kid along and point out the fun side of "making fantasy reality". TV is all "make believe". All kids need to know that. They need to know that nothing, not even documentaries or news are to be taken without some fact checking of your own (remembering Disney's misleading show on rodents).

I can't believe you took Suez's post so personally:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Suezoled

Some people don't just leave it to the TV to teach their kids things; they use it as an opportunity to explore what is real and what is not, themselves.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Good point, really good point. Which you could respond with what you or gradma did to do that with your neice (did you use the opportunity to explore the questions of reality and what is not?). But no, you spout on about "oh poor me". What?

I love watching TV with my kids and asking them questions about what they saw.

Since you opened a can of worms, how do you teach your neice what is real and what is not when you yourself believe in something that cannot be shown to work in reality and can be shown why it doesn't work? Yet you get worked up about a show that you can go to a website on and have them explain the whole thing about it not being real and that it WAS all animation? At least they admit it and show exactly how it was all put together. They don't sit there and say it wasn't animation and that they filmed these creatures and really found corpses, etc. They don't lie to people and say "science will someday prove that we really did find dragons to film".

:id:
 
Eos of the Eons said:
The point is that the kid missed some cues and you and/or others were there to help the kid along and point out the fun side of "making fantasy reality".
Click to expand...

I saw the show, enjoyed it, but think that they didn't include enough cues, especialy for children who excited by the subject may miss stuble clues that it's all fantasy. It was presented like a documentary complete with a dragon mummy recovered in the Alps. To kids who know that dinosaurs existed and know about the recovery of the Iceman, it would make sense that a dragon mummy might exist. They show the dragons flying with pterosaurs which most kids know really existed. If flying dinosaurs, why not dragons? I think that Animal Planet should have been a little more upfront about the roots of the show.

Eos of the Eons said:
TV is all "make believe". All kids need to know that. They need to know that nothing, not even documentaries or news are to be taken without some fact checking of your own (remembering Disney's misleading show on rodents).
Click to expand...

Eos, you make a great point here and I really think it's great that you spend time with your kids explaining these things. However, a lot of parents are less involved and often just park their kids in front of the TV to absorb whatever may be showing at the time.

I think science needs to be presented in an exciting and imaginative way to capture kids attentions. I just wish Animal Planet had made it clearer that they were playing a game of "what if?"
 
Eos, you make a great point here and I really think it's great that you spend time with your kids explaining these things. However, a lot of parents are less involved and often just park their kids in front of the TV to absorb whatever may be showing at the time.

I think science needs to be presented in an exciting and imaginative way to capture kids attentions. I just wish Animal Planet had made it clearer that they were playing a game of "what if?"
Click to expand...

So because the kids are parked in front of the TV, the television producers bear the burden of telling the audience what is real and what's not?
Science was shown in an exciting way. Fantasy creatures are made real. Harry Potter type magic is explained (I'm itching to get my hands on "The Physics of Harry Potter...) using real science.
 
supercorgi said:
I think that Animal Planet should have been a little more upfront about the roots of the show.

Eos, you make a great point here and I really think it's great that you spend time with your kids explaining these things. However, a lot of parents are less involved and often just park their kids in front of the TV to absorb whatever may be showing at the time.

I think science needs to be presented in an exciting and imaginative way to capture kids attentions. I just wish Animal Planet had made it clearer that they were playing a game of "what if?"
Click to expand...

I wish Disney was more upfront about their roots of their show as well. ;)
What was that darn rodent they lied about committing mass suicide?

Animal Planet does provide a whole source of information presenting what their intentions were and how the show was made. They even say they don't believe dragons were ever 'real'.

Does anyone here really think kids will end up believing in dragons because of the show? If that's the case, then we all do need to spend more time with our children and teaching them more about that medium "TV". Thing is, kids also believe in Santa for a while. They use their heads after a while though, and find lack of evidence for the literal Santa. They still turn out okay. It's the parents that push their kids to believe without facts that might be at risk for believing in dragons...but it's so darn easy to look up dragons and the myths and backgrounds.

Are we afraid this show will warp kids' minds into believing in myths? I don't think it will make any difference. There's so much other "make believe" out there about magnets and magic water that one show about dragons will hardly have any large scale effect compared to what's already out there.

Has anyone complained to the source? I'm wondering what their reaction would be? Will anyone post any replies?
 
Eos of the Eons said:
Does anyone here really think kids will end up believing in dragons because of the show?
Click to expand...
I hope so - if not for the show, then for this evidence of a young bearded dragon in my bedroom :D :

norbie2s6ey.jpg
 
I saw the show and I agree that they did not really go out of their way to explain that this was not real. But at the end of the show they had a half-hour making-of segment, I think, so if you watched the whole show there would be no doubt at the end that it was not real.

Yes, they were hyping it up big time. I had no question of whether they were actually trying to say it was real because I had seen promos for the show weeks ahead of time.

It was very entertaining, but schmaltzy at the end where they portrayed in HEART BREAKING DETAIL (sniff) the last days of the last two dragons, killed RUTHLESSLY BY EVIL HUMANS. Hmmmm ... smells like more "up with Mother Gaia" bs to me. But that's just my habit of injecting politics into everything.

C'mon, PLATINUM and GAS BLADDERS? Give me a break. Did you see the bit where they two dragons were breathing fire at each other, flying around in some sort of mating/territorial dispute? I mean, how many animals really outright kill each other over a mate? It doesn't happen very often ... I found that kind of unbelievable.

Entertaining show. Now if they'd just show "Planet's Cutest Kittens" I'd be complete.
 
Red Siegfried said:
Entertaining show. Now if they'd just show "Planet's Cutest Kittens" I'd be complete.
Click to expand...

Well, on Super Sunday they did have six hours of the Puppy Bowl (which I suspect will now become an annual event.)
 
c4ts said:
Most people should know that it wasn't real, but the Adult Swim message board would indicate otherwise. It's not exactly a bastion of intelligence anyway.
Click to expand...


Ooooooo, you're on there to, what's your name there? Mine's the same. If you see a SkepticJ or SkepJ around on the web it might be me.
 
Kopji said:
Animal planet has a series of these make believe things, there is another one on animals a million or years ahead in evolution. One featured a giant spider that raised mice to use as bait for lager prey. The web extended like metal wires across a big canyon.
Click to expand...


It was called The Future is Wild and was actually 5 million, then 100 million, then 200 million years in the future. The spiders caught seeds in the webs and "pogles"(a tiny mouse-like animal) ate the seeds inside the spider colony's cave and the spiders ate the pogles. I liked the show alot; only had a few gripes. One was koalas were referred to as koala bears, they didn't explain how a lizard from Australia got to the dried up Med. Sea to evolve into that saltfly catcher, they didn't explain why they thought mammals would do so poorly, I mean mammals survived the dinos and existed long before. They might only be small again like they used to be, but I don't see mammals going away until Sol boils Earth's oceans away.
 
I'm going back to my original point. Yes, kids should be taught by their elders and even peers as to what's right and isn't. Fantasy is wonderful.

BUT... I feel that Animal Planet should be what it was intended to be. An educational channel dedicated to ANIMALS. It's even in the name. As I said before, The point of educational television has its place, to be educational. The show was pure fantasy, and did not discuss the reality of things nearly enough.

This show was fine. Great even, if terribly innacurate. But it belonged on the Sci Fi Channel. That's what it's there for. Animal Planet should be dedicated to actual animals. This is the kind of thing that makes it okay for news programs to use the "he said, she said bullcrap" instead of real reporting.

2 points, however. A. The idea of hydrogen for breathing fire is fine, except, we should all know by now that burning hyrdrogen is almost completely colorless. thus a dragon showing his power from miles away would just look like a dragon holding his mouth open in a sort of "Duh" look.

B. The artist they gave to design the dragons was a bit off to say the least. He drew a Chinese dragon with wings. Never happened. The Chinese dragon had the head of a camel, the body of a snake, the scales of a carp, and the talons of an eagle. Just look at one. No wings. They could just fly. Why? Because they could! (lol). Anyway, I am done venting on the subject.

Have a great weekend, all!
 
2 points, however. A. The idea of hydrogen for breathing fire is fine, except, we should all know by now that burning hyrdrogen is almost completely colorless. thus a dragon showing his power from miles away would just look like a dragon holding his mouth open in a sort of "Duh" look.-treble_head


Ummmm, you sure hydrogen doesn't burn blue? Even if you're right they could have used methane(should have). It burns like you see in the show, it's the main gas in natural gas(which is probably what they used for the effect) and can be started by platinum.
 
SkepticJ said:
Ummmm, you sure hydrogen doesn't burn blue?
Click to expand...

Pretty sure it's virtually colourless.... yes. . Lots of UV though, apparently, so they could still be used as a display of power assuming that dragons could see into the UV part of the spectrum. And assuming that they were displaying to other dragons (which doesn't seem unreasonable).
 
richardm said:
Sure does.
Click to expand...


Now I don't know about your eyes but I see a flame on the end of that tube, hardly colorless.


Another thing, why can't that tube thing work as many times as you want to use it?

cat·a·lyst
n.
Chemistry. A substance, usually used in small amounts relative to the reactants, that modifies and increases the rate of a reaction without being consumed in the process.


Why did the dragons in the show have to keep eating platinum? Isn't the first time that gets put into their second set of teeth enough for their whole life?
 
IIRC, just putting platinum into the flame test will add color.

That and it's against a blue background for contrast. It looks about as visable as isopropyl when it burns, judging soley by that picture.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom