Planet Dinosaur (2011) User Reviews

A better, more evidence-based approach

[shivjm · 7/10 · 24 March 2012]

The best thing about Planet Dinosaur is not the CGI, the narration or the story (not that there is much of the latter). No, the best thing about the show is that it describes the fossil evidence for almost everything it, er, shows. From a bone broken by a stegosaur to a bed of eggs, when you see it on screen, you can be sure it's backed up by science and will be explained soon after, if it hasn't already been, with few exceptions.

The rest of the show leaves something to be desired. Yes, the animals are quite detailed. However, the animation is of somewhat poor quality, despite the fact that a lot of effort has clearly been put into it. In particular, there is no sense of weight to the dinosaurs: when two carnivores collide, it feels as if two small stones banged into each other, rather than two towering animals intent on hurting one another. Given that every episode features multiple struggles between predator and prey or predator and predator, this is a problem. At many points they feel disconnected from even the ground itself. In addition to the lack of weight, their movements in general are either too jerky or too smooth, almost never at the right point in the spectrum.

Planet Dinosaur repeats things a lot, especially in the last two episodes, where I think most of the salient facts were covered thrice over. The writing, too, is not quite up to scratch. The constant search for synonyms for 'monster' is a major offender. In many cases, the gravity of the narration seems very forced: it just doesn't gel with the image.

This series is overall a major step in the right direction. Introducing the general public-myself included-to the discoveries that we base our knowledge of dinosaurs upon in such an interesting fashion is to be commended. I just expected more, and I hope we will get it in the future.

Hot stuff.

[Innsmouth_Apprentice · 8/10 · 11 November 2014]

Planet Dinosaur has magnificent, realistic, dynamic direction and SFX that serve to put you into the frame with the gargantuan beasts. The informative narrative puts you further - into the mind of these creatures, as they go through their respective daily grinds. PD mainly focuses on the big boys - the titans who are truly the movers and shakers in their environment. When you watch these giants engage in enterprises like mass hunts or migrations, the events on-screen take on truly epic proportions.

The series uses appropriate props like maps and anatomical drawings to help you gain a better understanding of the dramas unfolding before you.

Very well-made, visually and viscerally impressive. 8/10.

On the dino planet

[TheLittleSongbird · 8/10 · 27 May 2018]

Have always been fascinated by dinosaurs, whether reading about them or seeing documentaries and films on them. Love documentaries, especially those of the national treasure that is David Attenborough, and admire to love a lot of the late John Hurt's filmography. So my expectations for 'Planet Dinosaur' were quite big and that's an understatement.

Expectations that were actually mostly lived up to, a good thing for me having seen my fair share of wastes of potential recently. 'Planet Dinosaur' is not one of the best documentaries personally seen (far from it), and there are better ones on the subject of dinosaurs. It is also not as ground-breaking as 'Walking with Dinosaurs', as far as dinosaur documentaries go, still a big achievement to this day. Standing on its own without comparing it to anything, 'Planet Dinosaur' was very interesting and mostly very well done.

'Planet Dinosaur' isn't perfect. The dinosaur effects are stiff, hasty-looking and lack finesse too often, though there are some grand ones. At times, it gets a bit repetitive, especially in the last two episodes agreed.

It sometimes is on the biased side, rather than a multi-dimensional picture of the dinosaurs they can be described in a certain way and viewpoint and one is not offered another.

However, when it comes to how it's written, 'Planet Dinosaur' does just as good a job entertaining and teaching, it's all very sincerely done and it never feels like a sermon. There are things here that are common sense and knowledge but one is taught a huge deal as well.

John Hurt's (RIP) narration delivery is similarly spot-on, very sensitively delivered and very dignified in a distinctively John Hurt way. Bias aside, the narration is comprehensive and sincere, with a good balance of things known to me and things new to me (really like it when documentaries do that), as well as compelling.

Visually, 'Planet Dinosaur' may lack the awe-inspiring, almost cinematic quality one anticipates. With that being said, it is beautifully shot, shot in a fluid and non-static way. The sceneries and landscapes can be beautiful but also they can be at other times they can be rendered a bit flatly, would have been better with the real settings.

Every episode is appropriately scored, never intrusive or too low-key. There is fun, tension and pathos throughout and the dinosaurs, prey and predator, are like characters that one cares for in the same way they do a human. The fossil evidence, very well researched and grounded rather than speculative, and the science, which in no way sounds like gibberish or like it was made up as they went along (a lot of homework was done in this regard) are also notable assets.

Overall, very good though with flaws that stop it from being great. 8/10 Bethany Cox

Double Review (5 & 49). Much smarter than Walking with...

[ziocane · 10/10 · 14 September 2011]

I've just finished watching the first episode of "Planet Dinosaur" with my 5 year old (a special late treat). He's a big fan of "Walking with Dinosaurs" and despite umpteen repeated viewings, WE still enjoy it (WWD). I wondered what we'd make of the new offering.

We loved it! The BBC have obviously decided that "Smartening Up" is the way to go. It's informative, entertaining, surprising and... a big problem. My boy is full of a million questions (as am I) and won't go to sleep. It's been a very long time since I've thought "Oooh, I can't wait for the next one"

A rebuttal for those of a similar sniffiness: I noticed a swift response to this broadcast 'elsewhere' saying that the CGI wasn't up to much. All I can say to that simpleton is "If you require flawless reality, turn off your telly"

Best Dinosaur documentary

[ocnav87 · 10/10 · 13 November 2014]

I can't believe people bother so much about the CGI of a documentary. If the CGI detail matters so much then you're missing the point of a documentary. If you're more concerned with CGI then go watch Avatar.

I feel the best way to describe this documentary is to think of Walking with Dinosaurs where they cut in at points to explain how they know/have come to believe what they just stated/showed. For instance they show Spinosaurus preying on large swordfish like animals. They freeze the animation to discuss and show fossil remains and other findings as to how they know Spinosaurus indeed hunted these animals. It all makes for a documentary where you feel you're not being shoveled theory as fact...or straight up BS as fact, both of which are common place in documentaries these days. This style of documentary is a breathe of fresh air in that respect. My only criticism is each episode is only half an hour in length, but that's not enough to mark it down as it still displays more fact than most documentaries where the episodes go for the usual hour. Hopefully they plan on making a second series.

A different beast to WWD

[andy-g85 · 10 October 2011]

The new dinosaur documentary series from the BBC, Planet Dinosaur, is currently about half-way through airing as I write this. Straight off the bat it is clear they are aiming for different targets with this attempt.

Previously Walking With Dinosaurs presented itself as a straight up nature doc, and was shot and narrated as such. Although it was a big hit, a lot of people mentioned how it bothered them that theories and guesswork were presented as facts. The BBC seem to have taken note of this in PD. Each episode regularly cuts away from the dinosaurs to show photos and 3D scans of real fossils, explaining what is actually known and what is educated supposition.

While I like the acknowledgement of facts and theory, I have to say personally I think it interrupts the pace of the show a bit. WWD had a better flow.

Onto the animals themselves. I watched a little 'Making Of' doc of PD, where a producer explained that something they really wanted to achieve was much more dramatic and dynamic camera shots of the creatures in action, and the best way they could figure to do this is by using all CG environments. I have to say I feel this was a mistake. The backgrounds are lifeless and dull, especially compared to the terrific locations used in WWD. The new bouncy, swirly camera angles do not add anything to the excitement of the show, but instead show the failings of the animals themselves more clearly.

And that is the shows biggest problem. Whereas in WWD the rendering and animation of the dinosaurs was hired out to a specialist CGI company, it seems very clear that PD was done in-house. It is a marked step down, particularly in the animation. WWD was fluid and just looked and felt so much more natural. In PD it is not quite right and is very noticeable - a great let-down after an advancement of 12 years. I do feel however the actual creature design was very accurate. You can see a clear similarity between the models and the actual fossils.

All this having been said however, I feel overall this a really good series, presenting some real history and facts, while managing not to insult the viewers intelligence. A good companion piece to WWD.

It is the best dinosaur documentary we have seen in years.

[tankace · 8/10 · 13 May 2016]

Planet Dinosaur, not to be confused with Dinosaur Planet is in practice a series made in order to inform the public for the newest discoveries about these long dead titans. Its facts about them are practically perfect and about 95% scientifically accurate, also the fact that in every episode it show many different places makes feel like a road trip through the earth in the Mesozoic and it make me believe that the I had been transfer on another planet, which in a sense its true because the creatures we see are as alien to us as the xenomorth from the Alien. A bonus fact is that the CGI is beautiful and the way the light falls on the dinosaur, its moves are as close as it gets to fool you that what you see is a real animal. Now the drawbacks of the series, first even the environments are made by a computer and I felt like seen a image in a mirror with another mirror, yes the suspending of disbelief can go so far. Also the changing of the places ,while entertaining it made the series feel rusted and disconnected each episode from the rest. The final reason why I think is a bit overrated is a personally one: Where in the name of Pangeia is Turannosaurus Rex, it may show you for a brief time his family members ,but T-Rex is the star of the non avian dinosaurs, not including him in the show is like cutting of Turion Lannister from Games of Thrones, the series could be still good, but this what made it come for more!! To conclude if you want to be entertained and educated at the same time ,this a good choice, but lets be honest Walking with Dinosaurs is the one true King, period.

Excellent Series - Terrible DVD production Quality

[pigdogg · 7/10 · 10 June 2017]

Planet Dinosaur (2011) DVD - An excellent series on the subject of dinosaurs. Several species are covered including hunting behaviors, diet, nesting, habitat range. The information is delivered in a professional and yet exciting fashion. Very well done.

I've enjoyed several of the BBC produced series on the subject of Dinosaurs. They are all good. The dramatic fashion in which this series is presented is excellent. Narration by John Hurt is flawless. Much of the content incorporates new evidence uncovered within the last 10 or 15 years which gives this series a fresh and interesting view. The additional mini documentary on how Dinosaurs are reconstructed is very informative and enjoyable - don't skip that segment.

It is difficult to comment on the quality of the CGI since I watched this on DVD. They put over 3 hours of content onto ONE SINGLE DVD disc ! What a BLUNDER. In order to accomplish this they must compress spectral and resolution information to such an extent as to render the final visual product a disaster. How could they have done this ? Were they trying to save a few bucks on production costs or did the marketing people convince them it would sell better as a single disc ? They even eliminated the chaptering and time sequence data to further save on space. This means that if you stop watching in the middle of one episode to go use the bathroom your DVD player has no way of remembering where you were. You must restart the episode from the beginning and fast forward to where you were. Ridiculous.

Perhaps the BLU-RAY disc version has all these flaws corrected. As bad as the disc quality was I still really enjoyed the content and rate this an easy 7/10. On BLU-RAY this may be an 8/10 or higher.

Well, then... this was different (for me)

[walkingwithprimeval · 6/10 · 23 October 2021]

I normally don't talk about actual straightforward dinosaur documentaries, honestly. I'm that niche kind of odd-person-out who'd rather prefer to watch a heap load of non-dinosaur related palaeo-documentaries instead because I've always been more interested in learning about what exactly came right after the non-avian dinosaurs' mass-extinction event, but just before the dawn of civilisation as we've come to know it today, via well-recorded historical textbooks on the middle ages of our own distant past (informative insight on what led up to the triumphant rise of modern animals during ancient times does it more for me in the whole "fascination department"). Ones like; 2001's Extinct, 2002's What Killed the Mega Beasts? And Wild New World: Prehistoric America, 2003's Monsters We Met and Before We Ruled the Earth, 2007's Prehistoric Predators, 2009's Animal Armageddon and Mega Beasts: Monsters Resurrected (I usually tended to just skip over the dino-focused episodes of those two), 2012's Titanoboa: Monster Snake and 2013's Ice Age Giants. And of course, I can't forget about 2001's Walking With Beasts and 2003's Walking With Cavemen, which is pretty much where this little obsession of mine originated from and started with. My close history with all this stuff first began because of these two marvellous Impossible Pictures productions, so I really have them to thank for all this (but it's only MY personal preference, though).

And so without further adieu, let's get stuck right into 2011's Planet Dinosaur as I attempt to review it unbiasedly. Well for starters, this surprisingly adequate miniseries boasts an impressively colourful display of numerous different dinosaur designs and features a whole myriad of several various geological times and places that have never before been seen in any other major dino-centric documentary. I especially enjoy the little aesthetic touches that really go into exquisite detailing, such as the case with the tiny scars and healed wounds (the result of prior battle-damage) all along the sides of the creatures' bodies and even the bright colouration of vibrant patterns running up, down and across the entire length of them as well (now that's a very commendable job well done, on the part of the experienced VFX animators). Unlike its spiritual predecessor, 1999's Walking With Dinosaurs, this BBC documentary actually goes out of its way to provide concrete proof of the factual evidence that's been acquired in the field of palaeontology from over the years (sticking much closer to the latest statistics in up-to-date discoveries, for the time in which it was produced). I believe it was a conscious decision to illustrate the fossil findings in this style of presentation due to the many controversies surrounding some of the incorrect scientific aspects as previously seen in a few of WWD's episodes. I reckon my best guess is that they must've went this route simply to avoid anymore backlash regarding their potential inaccuracies (it was done for the sake of not wanting yet another wave of complaints coming in, which is understandable).

Now onto my problems with the miniseries. It would appear to me that this particular nature programme is more violence-oriented than most others typically are, with a constant strong focus on depicting the ravenous top predators being viciously locked in seemingly endless battles to the death (they really put a tremendous emphasis on the overdramatised bloodthirsty fighting for either survival, dominance, territory, hunting rights or scrapping over the dead carcass of a prey item) with one another and other physical forms of aggressive species competition (whether they be of the meat-eating carnivore or plant-munching herbivore variety). Don't get me wrong, these segments wouldn't bother me all that much if the filmmakers were only striving to demonstrate how the intricate dynamics of symbiotic predator-prey relationships work in a bustling ecosystem (the perpetual state of natural order and balance within our vigorous world). But it feels to me like a reasonable amount of their admirable intentions were just a tad bit overly excessive (taken to some fairly drastic lengths, I suppose).

Coincidentally, Walking With Beasts also had its own fair share of horrific combat and gruesome imagery too and it may have come across as a bit morbidly gratuitous (possibly bordering on exploitive) at times. But ultimately the intensely graphic brutality seen in WWB was unique due to it helping further along the natural progression of the episodes' realistically raw stories, which were all centred around an almost forgotten world of primitive savagery (primal grittiness at its utmost). Besides that, it didn't leave out any of the quintessential supplementary topics; parents rearing their vulnerable offspring, chipper youngsters trying to survive into adulthood, learning what foods are safe to eat and which aren't, an individual's journey to reaching full maturity, mating rituals and reproduction challenges, coping with the tragic loss of a group member, the changing of climates, seasonal droughts, habitat loss, environmental disruption... the list goes on and on (it didn't forget to include any of these things). What I'm trying to say in its defence is that the faithful portrayal of explicit violence in THAT documentary somewhat made sense because functionally-speaking, it served a much greater narrative purpose by staying true to the unpleasant events of these real-life actions. And it didn't even happen all that frequently, which in-turn is what made you feel the full-magnitude of it when these certain parts actually did occur (it had a POINT of being there!). So you see, there's quite literally a vastly wider range of diverse and complex interlinked subjects in the natural world of the animal kingdom to be covered and explored upon besides just egregiously showcasing a merciless onslaught of violent content.

On its own merits, there's quite honestly a whole manner of different qualities Planet Dinosaur possesses. As I've already stated before, the expansive collection of entirely computer-generated environments and models created for each and every single one of the individual habitats and creatures alike were fully-rendered perfectly and made them all look topnotch (very nice lifelike reconstructions). And while some restorations of the prehistoric animals' movements can come off as robotically clunky at times, it wasn't a very noticeable issue for me personally (sadly though, the same can't be said for the cinematography's unnecessary reliance on overused "zoom-in & out" shaky-cam shots and disorienting sequences of rapid-fire editing). The background and theme music were both serviceable enough and just fine while watching the programme, but they don't leave a lasting impact on you in the same way how the majestic grandeur of Ben Bartlett's memorable musical scores do. And although John Hurt was a terrific actor, his narration can become slightly overdone during some sections of the episodes, with the refined tone of his voiceover not coming anywhere near close to being as iconic as the styles of David Attenborough and Kenneth Branagh.

So overall, I thought this was an OK documentary, even if a little redundant with its repetitive fights. I know it might sound like utter blasphemy for me to even entertain the mere notion of this unpopular opinion of mine, but I actually think I enjoyed it a smidgen more than something like the original Walking With Dinosaurs show, which I myself find kind of overrated (however, the sheer mind-blowing experience of seeing the live Arena Spectacular performance of WWD way back in 2009 was truly an unforgettable event in my young life). But this just makes you wonder, doesn't it. If Planet Dinosaur had done better with its initial figures in viewership, then it's highly likely we would've seen a few potential follow-ups to it. They could've gone down the Walking With... path of doing such passion-projects as a "Planet Beast" (sequel series) and "Planet Monster" (prequel series). It's fun to imagine the possibilities of what could have been, there.

Good science, awful presentation

[DexX · 3/10 · 21 April 2015]

Scientific issues aside, Walking With Dinosaurs was an immense success because it drew viewers into the lives of prehistoric creatures. They were living, breathing creatures, and audiences couldn't help but care about their fates.

Planet Dinosaur has two things going for it: solid science, and a great actor doing voice-over. In all other ways, it is greatly inferior to a series made a decade and a half before.

It is ugly, which for a big, expensive "spectacle" show is unforgivable. Every visual aspect is terrible: WWD's lush real-world locations have been replaced with flat, bland CGI backgrounds that would look disappointing in a video game; the dinosaur models are beautiful, but they are stiffly animated which makes them feel completely devoid of life; and the entire finished product is just terribly rendered. This is abysmal CGI, and the BBC bragging about how it only cost one third of WWD's budget is not a selling point; it's an explanation for why it's so damned ugly.

It would have been so easy for the BBC to hire Impossible Pictures and the whole WWD crew and make a sequel series that kept the heart and soul of what made WWD great while polishing up its more problematic aspects. Instead we get Planet Dinosaur, a series so ugly to look at it makes it seem like it was made BEFORE Walking With Dinosaurs, not more than a decade after.

I was so thrilled that the BBC had made another dinosaur series, but the finished result is deeply disappointing. I am one seriously unhappy dinosaur nerd.

Disappointing

[northoforacle · 1/10 · 2 March 2015]

In this over simplification of dinosaur life, we get to see how sensational the writers can be about these majestic creatures. Countless times throughout the series the narrator defines dinosaurs as "Killers" "Terrible killers" Deadly killers" "Monsters". Watch and roll your eyes at the blood splattered on the screen and ground. Anti-intellectual and narrow in scope. Dinosaurs lived for millions of years and depicting them only as "Horrible killers" does them a disservice in my opinion. Did they kill their prey to survive? Yes, as do lions, polar bears, and bald eagles. This is a common theme in nature but is it their sole defining attribute? No, and it shouldn't be. For a lover of nature and one always interested in the natural history of our planet, this series was disgraceful.

Accurate science, but the implementation could have been much better

[tyrannophillip · 4/10 · 9 January 2021]

I have mixed feelings about this documentary. I first saw it in 2012, and I expected it to be similar to BBC's earlier series Walking with Dinosaurs. I think it was ok, but not good. First, I have to talk about the positive stuff of Planet Dinosaur: Almost all dinosaurs are scientifically very accurate! In fact, I think this is the most accurate BBC dinosaur documentary. In addition, John Hurt is an awesome narrator. Also, this series stayed away from the T. rex and instead used more obscure, unknown dinosaurs like Skorpiovenator or Paralititan. That was a welcome and interesting decision. Also, the models are extremely detailed, allowing you to see every individual scale. That is very impressive. However, there are many problems with this series, which took me from enjoying it. First off, the subjects being talked about are almost always just dinosaurs killing each other. It's all about predator- prey relationships. Herbivores in their daily lifes are rarely shown. In other words, the show's main subject was prehistoric violence. Also, the animation quality is very bad for BBC standards. As good as the models look like, they were animated in a very stiff way and don't look alive at all. For example, the biting animations of the carnivores look very hollow as if they aren't able to crush anything. They also never bite a carcass or peace of meat in half. " Walking with Dinosaurs" (1999) and " Dinosaur Planet" (2003) all had much better animation than " Planet Dinosaur" despite being much older.The animations haven't aged well. Also, " Planet Dinosaur" was done entirely on a Computer, and it's easy to tell. There are no real filming locations or even practical effects like in " Walking with Dinosaurs". The landscapes, the dinosaurs.... Nothing was real. Because " Walking with Dinosaurs" and other documentaries were shot in real live locations, the world seemed alive and as if the camera crew went back in time filming these creatures, but here, you can tell it's not a real life location, but just done on a computer. Also, the cinematography wasn't very great. The camera is often zooming in or zooming out for no reason, which makes " Planet Dinosaur" feel fast and hectic. However, the biggest weakpoint of this series is that it does not tell a story. It's all just scenes of dinosaurs interacting, often fighting, and then the science gets analyzed. There aren't even any scientists featured, John Hurt is the only human presence in this entire documentary. There is no protagonist you can attach a relation to. " Dinosaur Planet", a better dinosaur documentary, did that concept much better. They have shown an animal's life, making it easy for you to attach a relation to the protagonist, while having short sequences of a scientist explaining the science behind the stories. This is what " Planet Dinosaur" should have done. But they do not tell a story, which makes this documentary less impactful then " Dinosaur Planet". All in all, I wouldn't say this is the worst dinosaur documentary, but there is much from the mistakes this documentary made to be learned from in order to not repeat them. If you like dinosaur documentaries that leave big impressions, I recommend you to watch " When Dinosaurs Roamed America", " Walking with Dinosaurs" or " Dinosaur Planet".

oh the disappointment

[cayates1 · 29 September 2011]

The cartoon monster show is immensely disappointing. The BBC loves CGI which is fine but not when it's cheap 'n nasty CGI, the sort that would shame Channel5. You see the same rubbish in Doctor Who (which is rubbish anyway) & no doubt many other BBC co-productions which I've long since grown sick of. Outcasts, Bonekickers & Day of the Triffids are but 3 dreadful examples. It wasn't always like this. I kid you not the animation in Walking with Dinosaurs(1999)is easily better. The monsters in that have a gait & vitality that put this rubbish to shame. I can't comment about the palaeontological accuracy of this but I know when animation doesn't ring true. The landscapes look thin & synthetic, I've seen better work by amateurs on youtube. Tom & Jerry are more convincing. Ray Harryhausen must be wondering why his stop-motion technique was superseded by something that has been so shoddily rendered. Where's the quality control? The BBC is throwing a huge amount of prestige into this production with ancillary programmes on BBC2 & 4 by the likes of Alice Roberts, Jem Stansfield & Dallas Campbell(Dallas?) - a blitz really, so they obviously aren't aiming this at 5yearolds. Any simpleton can see this is not up to scratch. It's like evolution in reverse. I gave it 2/10 because the on-screen data blocks are OK, not good just OK.

Worse than Walking with Dinosaurs

[jurassicsean · 5/10 · 6 June 2018]

I will admit, this is not the worst dinosaur documentary out there. But it is not to the same quality as the "Walking with" series was.

Let's talk about the pros first. This definitely contains a plethora of factual information to share with the audience, which is quite nice. It takes the time to explain how paleontologists have theorized certain aspects and behaviors of the creatures based on direct fossil evidence. The show focuses quite a bit on the actual fossils rather than always showing the dinosaurs on screen, which is a nice change of pace. With all the evidence they present, it makes the dinosaurs in the show more believable in their behaviors and actions.

Now to the cons. I don't like the style of the show. The models look very bland, especially with the models. Most of the creatures look very similar with their models, and the models themselves look cheap. When there is a feathered dinosaur, not all of the feathers look like they're really on the dinosaur. The creatures and the environments don't look real. It all looks like it was done on a computer (which I know it is, but it would be nice if it looked a little more realistic). I also do 't like how basically every scene with a dinosaur involves it fighting and/or killing another dinosaur. I get it, dinosaurs fighting each other is entertaining, but fighting is not something animals do 24/7. It's actually a last resort for animals, as it would be for dinosaurs. Now it's fine to have some scenes with fighting dinosaurs, but not too much. This is something that Walking with Dinosaurs did fantastically. That program had little fight scenes, and was mainly showing dinosaurs just doing what dinosaurs normally do, and it worked. So why does this show feel the need to only have fight scenes? It's unnecessary.

Avoid if you like dinosaurs

[chrisodonnell-85719 · 1/10 · 15 September 2018]

Absolutely dreadful. With a drab and bleak feel that felt cold and dated. I cannot believe that this was made by the world renowned BBC over ten years after the superb WWD. The CGI looks so cheap and dated. It actually looks worse than Dino Dan and that's saying something. And at least that has some entertainment value. I love dinosaurs and thought you couldn't go wrong with the subject, but clearly you can. In the end I had to switch it off as it made me feel depressed! We have seen how well these programmes can be made and this is a display of how it shouldnt be done. Watching the original Jurassic Park now to decompress after this boring and flat abomination . No i am not a fan.