|
29 of 31 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
Good but disappointing, 11 Dec 2005
After the excellent 'Walking with Dinosaurs' and 'Walking with Beasts', I hoped that the BBC would make a follow up series regarding the period in history before the dinosaurs. Hence I was pleased to see 'Walking with Monsters' coming to our screens. Although previous entries in the 'Walking with...' series and Nigel Marven's entries have come under a fair amount of speculation and criticism, I do think that overall they are good productions. To be frank, 'Walking with Monsters' lets the side down. My complaint about the show is not the special effects; as usual they are great. What I do think is very wrong about this series is the fact that it misses out completely a few key events in the evolution of vertebrate life which are crying out to be mentioned. The first being the origin of all vertebrate life. All we see to start off with is the so-called first fish. Where did he come from??? Secondly and, personally from my point of view most crucially, there is no mention of the evolutuion of fish into tetrapods. We just see the fish grow legs and become an early amphibian and that's it. Surely this is worth talking about!!! Next what about the plants. The previous shows did make small comments concerning the evolution of plant life. Here they don't really get a look in. One of the ways the BBC could have got around some of these issues would have been to make a longer series. Previous outings have had a six episode run. Why is 'Walking with Monsters' only a three episode run? Surely this series deserved a longer run, especially considering the immense time scale, the longest of all the 'Walking with...' series so far, that it covers. For example the first episode is the worst; covering about 200 million years in 30 minutes!!!! Overall good in places and entertaining but on the other hand also very disappointing too.
|