Showing posts with label TV. Show all posts
Showing posts with label TV. Show all posts

Friday, March 18, 2011

Adrianne Palicki Plays Wonder Woman on TV


Remember that Wonder Woman TV show I talked about awhile ago? For reasons I'm simply unsure of, the show was greenlit--it's still written by David E. Kelley--and Ms. Palicki here was cast as the titluar character. I can't decide if this looks good or looks like a Halloween costume. I think I'm okay with it, but the latex and blue pants seem odd. Adrianne looks unnaturally pushed-up, too. I'm just not sure about this show. Another aspect of it (the show) will be that Diana runs some big corporation that makes...toys?

I just...I just don't know.

Monday, October 11, 2010

Wonder Woman...TV Show?



Entertainment Weekly claims that David E. Kelly (a bunch of shows I'd rather forget) is writing a treatment for a Wonder Woman TV show. There's been a WW movie on hold for about a decade while different studios rewrite her origin and try to figure out how to portray an invisible plane on-screen and whether Megan Fox would make a good Diana Pince (she would not). So TV networks have apparently expressed interest. This could be a Very Good Thing or a Very Bad Thing. Here are some thoughts I have that would make the show work:

1) No invisible plane. No flying. Invisible planes are stupid, and flying is a great idea, but live-action TV has yet to portray such an action in any sort of convincing way (Smallville just ignores that particular power). If it were a movie, I'm sure the budget would be there, but a network TV show? Probably not. Find some other way for our girl to get around.

2) Lynda Carter must be present in a meaningful way. Obviously, she can't be Diana Prince anymore (which is a Damn Shame), but she could easily play Hippolyta, WW's mother. The show must acknowledge Lynda's singular, important presence as the character in a way that allows the audience to move away from her, and accept the New Kid. Casting Lynda as Hippolyta is the only respectful way to do that.

3) Don't use the old costume. Not even the JLU costume. It's kitchy, impractical, and certainly not modern. However, the new post #600 costume--the one designed by Jim Lee--is modern, practical, and good lookin'. This is something a superheroine would wear, as opposed to something she'd wear to a Halloween party.

4) Be careful with the origin story. The old origin story is stupid. I'm just gonna go ahead and admit that. A modern WW could have some kind of military origin story--a superpowered child brought up in a military complex (codenamed Themyscira?) and trained to be an American force for good. Many fans will accept a reworked origin so long as series staples show up in one form or another. Respect must be paid to the origin, corny as it is.

5) Wonder Woman is a brunette with blue eyes. She is tall, authoritative, curvy, and chesty. The biggest mistake you can be make in casting Wonder Woman would be to get some flat-chested youthful blonde who just happens to be a big name right now in TV. The show will fail if it strays too far from Diana's look and the familiarity of the character. Unfortunately, network TV has been grappling with curvy leads for a looooong time. Sofia Vergara on Modern Family is the exception that proves the rule. But even if you have to go with some no-name actress who we've never heard of, Diana Prince has to look like Diana Prince. Lynda Carter is her mother, remember?

6) Use the interesting villains, please. Cull from the more recent comics if you have to. If you stick with the military thing, her enemies can be other successful, but rogue, agents with codenames and powers that reflect their specific powers. You can have Cheetah and Hades that way.

7) No Lasso of Truth. It's stupid.

Anyone else? What should/should not be a part of this TV show? Casting ideas? Plotpoints? Go nuts!

Monday, June 28, 2010

I Should, Like, Blog or Something.

Things have been quiet, and not just because I've been reading a lot about ceratopsians and the Triassic. I'm also reading about big prehistoric cats and reviewing a bunch of video games. Reviewing things takes up a lot of time! But, perhaps more than the other things, the wife and I have been sucked into this old TV show, which we can't get enough of.

Spare time: gone. Which is a shame, because we could be, you know, shopping or whatever.

By the way, have you folks seen Toy Story 3 yet? Because if you haven't, you should. Like, instead of reading this sentence. Go, go, shoo! It's the best movie I've seen all year, and you will be reduced to a blubbering mass at the end.

Tuesday, December 08, 2009

Clash of the Dinosaurs: Highs & Lows


The Discovery Channel started a new dinosaur series on Sunday called, um, Clash of the Dinosaurs. I think it discusses new ideas about dinosaur biology and evolution, I'm not really sure. I watch it for the talking heads, honestly, who are people I know and have met, which is awesome. I urge you to watch the first episode and make your own determination, but here's my rundown of the pros and cons.

In the Green Corner...

1. The dinosaurs look really nice. Tyrannosaurus, Triceratops, Sauroposeidon, Deinonychus, and Quetzelcoatlus are the stars and the artists put some time and effort into these critters. For the first time since I can remember, these TV-special-calibur CG dinosaurs look better than the beasties in Walking With Dinosaurs, a benchmark I've been hoping somebody will overcome for the better part of a decade. They even put (some) feathers on the raptors, so there you go.

2. They had an animation of Quetzelcoatlus landing...and then taking off! You better believe I rewound and replayed those sequences about five times each. Easily the highlight of the episode for me. The rest was pretty standard dinosaur vs. dinosaur fare. And hey, then the big pterosaur chowed down on a baby T.rex, so bonus points all around!

3. Thomas Holtz bringing the smackdown to T.rex as a scavenger (briefly). Always appreciated. I can't help but notice and be amused by the fact that he and Bakker are now the go-to guys for T.rex, but Horner was nowhere to be found. A welcome change!

4. Matt Wedel really likes Sauroposeidon, and explains the hazardous life history of giant sauropods really, really well.

5. The T.rex bit off the Trike's postorbital horn! AWESOME! And then it got stabbed in the eye (and, from the looks of it, brain)! YET MORE AWESOME! I winced, internally. Look, folks! They're basing their behavior animations on fossil evidence now! Another bridge has been crossed.

In the Red Corner...

1. Limited animation sequences repeated endlessly. How many times do I have to see the same X-ray view of T.rex sniffing the air? How many dinosaurs is that baby T.rex going to fall out of its egg? How many times do I get to see that angry Triceratops bellow? About a million each, apparantly.

2. Everybody is ga-ga for raptors hunting in packs. It's a hypothesis, sure, but I was hoping that somebody would bring up that one study that convincingly suggested that they were more like varanids than canines. That analogy WAS applied to T.rex, but in a throw-away manner.

3. They show kept pounding away at the idea that T.rex was some sort of Einstein among dinosaurs, but then concluded by saying they were all morons who got along thanks to their physical adaptations (they didn't need to be smart). Make up your mind, Discovery Channel. For whatever reason, they pulled "four miles away" out of their ass for "how far away T.rex could see things." The implication being that "things" means "prey items." I'm doubting that. A mountain? Sure. A Trike? Maybe not.

4. Are those hatchling sauropods rising from a sandy nest, or adults moving through a sand dune? It's hilariously unclear.

5. Sauropods had no way of defending themselves from attack? How about kicking, tail-whipping, or stomping? The juvenile Sauroposeidon, which looked about as big as an Astrodon given the trees around it, just kinda stood there while the raptors tore it apart.

6. Dinosaurs are no daikaiju. You don't need to slow their motion down to impart a sense of size. In reality, big animals are very capable of making incredibly fast movements. Have you ever seen a spooked (or pissed-off) elephant? That sucker makes unbelievably quick movement. Jerky, reflexive motions. The same principle can be applied to dinosaurs, but you never see it. Not here, not anywhere.

So that's the rundown. Again, I encourage you to watch it because overall it's quite good. Since it's a cable network, it's probably on at least once a day, so it shouldn't be too hard to catch a repeat.

Monday, August 11, 2008

That One Dinosaur Show...

At Brian's recommendation, I recorded the first two episodes of the History Channel's "Jurassic Fight Club." With some apprehension, I watched the first episode for twenty minutes before getting sick to my stomach and deleting it from the DVR's memory. I started the second one, and only lasted fifteen minutes. This is not a good sign. Here are problems, as I see them:

1) Dinosaur George (never heard of 'im) seems to like rampant speculation. His narrative was unappreciated. I preferred hearing from guys I've read papers by, like Thomas Holtz and Phil Currie. But this is clearly Dinosaur George's show, and he likes making everything an adventure.

2) Okay, so we're going to determine that, based on predatory birds, that a female Majungatholus was larger than the males. Great. But then, we're going to say that males were prettier than females...also based on modern birds (like domesticated turkeys!). However, in predatory birds, there is virtually no sexual dimorphism aside from body size. It's like the people who put the show together just jumbled a lot of facts together, and then forced those facts to fit a dinosaurian paradigm. This does not always work! Dinosaurs were different than modern animals.

3) There seemed to be budgetary constraints on the CGI. How many times are you going to show the exact same animation sequence? Oh wait, it was mirrored that time. Totally different. And in many cases, the CGI was awful. I can't begin to describe my problems with the tyrannosaurs in the second episode, both with Tyrannosaurus itself and Nanotyrannus. The latter, it would seem, did not have a bony pelvis, but instead a "waterwaist" that just flopped around while it walked. Awful, awful, awful.

4) Why haven't I heard anything about a juvenile T.rex with lots of broken bones? And how, exactly, is Nanotyrannus implicated in its death? Shed teeth? I have no idea. These finds are being presented without any kind of reference system. I liked especially how Dinosaur George discussed, at length, this brutal slaying of a juvenile T.rex, but none of the other talking heads mentioned the find. Would somebody point me in the direction of this beat-up juvenile T.rex?

5) The baby tyrannosaurs were just scaled-down versions of the adults. By the way, I have never seen a worse CG model of a Tyrannosaurus rex in my life. And I hated the Walking with Dinosaurs tyrannosaur. In 2008, a full seven years away from Walking with Dinosaurs, surely we're able to come up with better CG models of dinosaurs. Surely.

6) And maniraptorans should have feathers now. There's just no excuse anymore. The barenaked dromaeosaurs briefly shown in the tyrannosaur episode made me sad.

7) I'm always amazed at how shows on the Discovery Channel, History Channel, and Learning Channel are somehow able to take a paragraph of information and turn it into an hour-long show. Majungasaurus was a cannibal. We've got intraspecific remains with Majungasaurus tooth marks on it. There's no way to know whether the animal actively killed its cousin or just scavenged it. Happy? I can give you the references, too. And in doing so, I have just given you more information, and more accurate information, than was presented in the first episode of Jurassic Fight Club.

8) Surely there are topics about paleontology that would better occupy a 42-minute show. The extinction of the dinosaurs, or the end-Permian extinction, maybe. Or how about the rise of mammals following the extinction of the dinosaurs? Or the dynasty of the therapsids before the Permian extinction? And can we stop using horrible, bottom-of-the-barrel CGI? Remember that old "DINOSAUR!" show on PBS hosted by Christopher Reeve? It used Phil Tippet stop-motion animation for the dinosaur sequences. These stop-motion efforts were worlds better than the horrifying CG in virtually every dinosaur "documentary" that's come out since Walking with Dinosaurs.

9) I'm currently watching the DVD of the BBC's "Chased by Dinosaurs" series. It's more-or-less a follow-up to Walking with Dinosaurs, and I would go so far as to say it's more enjoyable. The technology is better, and thus the character models are better. The narration is more flowing because it's being narrated by a real guy, and the science is better. Flawed at times, sure, but better than Jurassic Fight Club. I'm not sure why Sarcosuchus ended up in Argentina, though.

Don't watch "Jurassic Fight Club." It's not worth your time! There are any number of better dinosaur shows out there, including that ancient PBS show.

Thursday, March 06, 2008

Norell v. Martin: the NOVA Microraptor Documentary

Better late than never, eh? PBS' science series, NOVA, aired a documentary a few weeks ago about Microraptor gui and how it flew. This show comes five years after the little bugger's initial discovery and more than a year after the biplane posture paper was published. Because the latter was never really discussed during the documentary, I have to wonder when the show was produced. While generally entertaining, the Microraptor doc ultimately erred in a number of important ways which I'll get to later. First, though, let's talk about the show itself.

The focus of the documentary was figuring out how Microraptor gui (=zhaoianus?) used its four wings to fly. No living bird has primaries on its feet, so Microraptor represents an entirely novel flight strategy. As Xu Xing notes in the show, the fact that Microraptor's hindwings are made up of asymmetrical primaries, they must have had an aerodynamic function. The show starts as an exploration of how this unique apparatus would have worked.

But then we force Larry Martin into the picture. Martin is a University of Kansas paleontologist who is one of the few doubters of a dinosaur origin for birds. For reasons which the show never goes into, Martin believes that Microraptor is a descendant of some pre-dinosaurian avian ancestor. Even more than that, he believes its limbs sprawl, like they do in Xu Xing's original illustration (an illustration which Xu himself apologizes for during the show). And so a face-off ensues: Xu, Norell, and the crew of the AMNH build a model of Microraptor's skeleton while Martin and some other guy build their own model. Norell et al. create their skeleton by measuring and averaging the lengths and structure of every single bone in the animal's body, based on more than 30 specimens (I was unaware that so many were known!). Martin uses a single specimen that was crushed by a Cretaceous steamroller.

Not surprisingly, Norell's team creates what appears to be a normal theropod skeleton, while Martin's model looks like a paper airplane. It all comes down to the structure of the femur head and the corresponding socket in the pelvis. Independant experts are called. Norell's model actually works, and Martin's model is so squashed that the femur won't even fit in the socket. Ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner!

That entire discussion was a waste of time. In presenting Martin's crackpot idea, NOVA (and PBS) was, in a way, educating people on a controversy that doesn't exist. On the other hand, they did do a good job of showing why Martin's idea doesn't work, and how the scientific process works to reconstruct (accurately) a long-extinct dinosaur.

After determining that their model fits together properly, Norell's team puts meat on the bones and feathers on the meat. Their final model looks great, except that feathers were used rather sparsely. The Microraptor model on display at the AMNH looks a lot better than the model used for NOVA. I wonder if the NOVA model was a prototype for what was eventually used at the AMNH? Anyway...

The model, feathers and all, is placed in a wind tunnel to try and figure out the best gliding posture. Few positions were attempted:

1) Legs splayed as far as they'd go, with the hindwing directed toward the tail (performed poorly).
2) Legs swung forward, feet facing forward, and hindwing directed downward (performed poorly).
3) Legs held in various Z-shapes, and hindwing directed downward (performed poorly).
4) Legs held in Z-shape, with biplane wing configuration (performed well, but not great).
5) Legs straight and directed back, so that hindwings overlap above the tail (performed best).

The theory here being that Microraptor would use its legs to spring off a tree trunk, and it would keep its hindlimbs in that retracted position. Sadly, for all practical purposes, the hindwing is barely involved in gliding or flight in this posture. At any rate, when Microraptor approached its destination, it could have brought its legs forward into the second position to form a sort of air brake.

But as Darren Naish points out all the time, animals are not always built ideally. Flaws exist in every organism. If humans were ideally built for an upright posture, I wouldn't constantly have back problems, and Scott wouldn't have a broken pedal sesamoid. Also, the Chatterjee paper linked above gives plenty of good reasons why a biplane posture would work, and how the hindwings would actively participate in flight.

The show just sort of ends after that, which was disappointing. The real sin committed by the NOVA show, though, was that it constantly hammered forth the idea that Microraptor is some kind of transitional form in the evolution of flight, which is probably not true. Yes, Archaeopteryx has short feathers along its hindleg, and there are a few enantiornithines with hindleg feathers (some are quite long), but that does not mean that the original paravian had hindwings. It's more parsimonious, for now, to conclude that the original paravian did have hindleg feathers, but not the extent that Microraptor did. Microraptor may have developed its own specializations.

The show did do a great job of two things, though: First, explaining how traits move through a family tree. The "branching family tree" graphics was very well-done and accurate, and showed how a single trait, like a tridactyl pes, originated at the base of the Theropoda and was inhereted by the descendants of that ancestor. Also, it was extremely interesting to watch how Norell's team created their Microraptor skeleton. It must have taken forever, but the results were beautiful. This is science in action, people. I suppose the show did a good job of explaining why Martin's model didn't work, although that's pretty obvious from just looking at his steamrolled skeleton.

Overall, the show was interesting but probably moreso for somebody unfamiliar with Microraptor. While I haven't played around with it, Scott tells me that the NOVA website's interactive Microraptor media are quite intruiging. Did any of you in readerland watch the show? What did you think?