Walking with Beasts

I always like watching these dramatisations (when they're well

done and don't dump the equivalent of Raquel Welch in a fur bikini

into the mix) because attempting to portray these animals in

graphic, moving form according to a present theory can give one

new ideas about that theory. I have to say that I enjoyed this series

more than the original Walking with Dinosaurs. Maybe it's the

novelty value. After Jurassic Park it's a bit hard to make dinos look

fresh with the same cgi tech.

Turning the cgi on animals with some living analogues, but that

don't often get covered, was quite fascinating, though. Yes, they

picked and chose which palaeontological theories they wanted to

show, but I thought they did well, overall. The first episode was

especially good, and I also liked the Ice Age sections. The whale

ep was compelling, too, though I ultimately found it a touch too

depressing. They were able to get across some very telling points

with a few images. One of the most striking for me came from the

Pleistocene ep where some wolves are feeding on an old, frozen

carcass--which turns out to be a Human who had straggled too far

from the group. That really brought home the idea that, until very

recently, Humans were not the top predators in the food chain.

Finally, for some reason, one of my cats found this series

absolutely fascinating. Being a cat, he of course has the attention

span of a fruit fly and ordinarily ignores the tv (unless a Wild

Discovery show is on--"'Cops' for Cats", I like to call that one). But

whenever I put this series on, he sits there, six inches in front of

the tube, for an entire 30 minute segment. I think it must have

something to do with the sounds, since the only ep he ignores is

the whale one. I have no idea what he thinks of it all, but I do

wonder if the makers of the show may have hit on something in

their recreation of the possible sounds these animals made.

Tim Haines made a real misstep in this sequel to Walking With Dinosaurs, in that he made the doc too much of a story, and not enough of a documentary. The smilodon segment, especially, seemed contrived, with the two "brothers" and a lone warrior smilodon named "Half-Tooth." They also take too many great pains to have the animals reacting to the camera.

On the other hand, the evolution of man is nicely done - and I strong recommend the Discovery Channel documentary Neanderthal as a companion piece.

Speaking of Discovery, once again they make a hash of the documentary, editing out the rougher scenes, and intercutting the Making Of... into it as well. Stockard Channing sounds robotic as the narrator as well.

I strongly suggest getting the DVD, which retains all the BBC UK stuff intact.

The general consensus among people who're hardcore fans of popular franchises is that; the first instalment is a good start to the series, the sequel does things better than the original and is vastly superior to its predecessor in almost every conceivable way, and the third entry is usually considered to be the weakest one in the entire trilogy. Some examples being the original Star Wars trilogy (from 1977 to 1983), the Alien series (from 1979 to 1992), the Terminator series (from 1984 to 2003), the X-Men series (from 2000 to 2006), and Sam Raimi's Spider-Man trilogy (from 2002 to 2007). All of these franchises are commonly placed into this category and with that in mind, I don't think BBC's Walking With... trilogy is any different in this regard, as Walking With Beasts surpasses Walking With Dinosaurs and genuinely feels like a topnotch masterpiece in this particular field of documentary production.

The most pivotal function of an edutainment documentary (such as this being an "educationally entertaining" programme centred on extinct animals) above all else is to properly enlighten the clueless viewer with its vast wealth of informative knowledge and trivial facts on the specific topic through the fine artistry of compelling storytelling and utilisation of cutting-edge special effects (well, at least for the time when it was first broadcast, that is). I feel as if the filmmaking duo, Tim Haines and Jasper James (who were like the groundbreaking pioneers of their time, back in the day), took everything they learnt while making the first instalment in their series on prehistoric life (that of course being the smash hit Walking With Dinosaurs) and really perfected their craft when it came to producing Walking With Beasts, as this second entry improved on all those little flaws that were present in the original miniseries. And in regards to the individual stories being told, every episode's plot was fantastic.

Back when I watched Walking With Beasts for the very first time (I'm talking years ago), my disbelief was totally suspended as I quickly found myself captivated by its strange world of bizarre, yet familiar, ancient animals in this Cenozoic era (yep, my suspension of disbelief really kicked in on my original viewing of this intriguing documentary). Unfortunately for me, I didn't get the chance to see this masterful miniseries when it was initially broadcast on telly in late 2001, as I probably would've been a bit too young at the time to be interested in its subject matter or even care about what's going on in the episodes (I wouldn't have been able to fully appreciate it for what it was at that early point in my life). But luckily though, I happened to stumble upon the DVD for it when I took a trip to the London Museum of Natural History (in the gift shop section, of course) as an older kid.

It helped bring the wonderful world of Mega Beasts into the public consciousness and made people more aware of our mysterious planet's forgotten history, when it comes down to learning about what happened in the aftermath the dinosaurs' brutal demise (observing how mammals diversified to reign supreme) I mean, sure. Most people are already familiar with the really famous Ice Age megafauna, such as woolly mammoths and sabre-toothed cats. But what about terror birds and giant ground sloths? How about the world's largest land mammal (the biggest to have ever walked on the face of the Earth)? Or even our ancient "ape-man" ancestors (the earliest known upright-walking primates)? So with that in mind, this documentary (which has Kenneth Branagh's spellbinding narration) brought these obscure creatures to everyone's attention and made them recognisable in the mainstream pop culture.

Ben Bartlett truly outdid himself here, as this masterclass of a soundtrack is nothing short of amazing. His whole musical score throughout the entire Walking With... series is really good, but I think the one he composed for this might honestly be his magnum opus (yep, it's the greatest accomplishment he's ever achieved). The more affective tracks heard in episodes 4 and 6 brought about a raw sensation of overwhelming awe whenever the background music started to gently swell, followed by the growing sounds of a human choir's eerie singing and tribal chanting (it's such a sensational piece of grandiose score). Even the action-packed, opening theme always used to get me super excited before watching the actual episodes (such a catchy tune, especially with all those primitive grunting, growling and roaring noises that the various animals let out). It's the all-time best theme music to be put in the opening of a TV show, in my opinion (still sends chills down my spine!).

Some of the facts and statements in this documentary are obviously outdated now but back when its production went underway, the creators sure did their reaserch thoroughly when consulting with the top experts on how their behind-the-scenes crew should depict these lesser-known prehistoric animals. So what if it isn't exactly considered to be entirely accurate anymore, anyway? New scientific discoveries based on the latest evidence of fossil findings are practically being made every single day and what's more, our very perception and understanding of extinct animals will constantly be changing in the many long years to come, thus making the previous assertions we once had obsolete (that's just how the world of palaeontology works). So with that in mind, nature documentaries about pre-historical times will NEVER EVER be 100% palaeonotlogically accurate. So to those people who always keep going on and on about how the animals aren't portrayed as being fully accurate, all I have to say is... "So What? Get Over It!"

To sum things us; underneath all the spectacle of its flashy effects, Walking With Beasts succeeds at being a thoroughly remarkable programme on the subject of natural history and, to put it frankly (with all due respect), I actually prefer this to Walking With Dinosaurs because I personally find it a bit more fascinating (being taught about things I never knew existed before). It's honestly one of my all-time favourites! In truth, the only real complaint I have is the objective fact that some of the CGI on the more fur-covered creatures obviously doesn't hold up as well by today's standards for the high quality of visual effects seen on TV shows (it's very noticeable in certain areas). But given the proper context as to the time in which it was made (back when CGI wasn't as prevalent in TV productions), I think it's excusable and just a petty nitpick. I simply can't praise it enough and on that note, I highly recommend it.

This series is truly awe-inspiring, besides being entertaining and educational to boot. The CGI graphics are so good that the creatures look completely real. And to the nay-sayer below who complains that `no human ever saw these creatures … blah blah … how do we know … blah blah … its like saying Thomas The Tank Engine is the real story of the British railway … blah blah' I say this: First if all, palaeontologists can tell a whole lot from fossils – everything from an animal's size and gait, right down to what it ate. Secondly, some of these animals (mammoths, sabre-tooth cats, woolly rhinos, giant elks) WERE seen by human eyes, and indeed cave paintings have proved to be another valuable source of information about these creatures. And thirdly, some of these creatures are so closely related to modern animals that it is possible to draw fairly sensible conclusions about what their social habits must have been like just by observing their modern relatives. Of course there's inevitably going to be an element of conjecture and speculation in a production like this, but at least it is educated, sensible and logical conjecture, and it's probably not far off the truth in most cases. My minor quibbles are pretty much the same as those already aired by other reviewers: I found it incredibly naff giving the sabre-tooth cats names - `Half Tooth' and `The Brothers'. Why not just call them Brian, Clive and Trevor instead? That would have been no more or no less silly. And some fascinating and truly bizarre prehistoric animals were completely overlooked or mentioned just briefly (the ancient horses being one example). But these are minor quibbles about an otherwise superb effort by the BBC. It gets 9 out of 10 from me.

Even has some humans in it, but none resembling Raquel Welch, nor the phony language.

It's a live-action documentary in six parts, ranging from the meteor that extirpated the dinosaurs up to the Ice Ages. The Cenozoic Era, largely overlooked, but most important in shaping today's fauna (including us!)--much more relevant than The Big Show that was the dinosaur period.

The most interesting sequences are on the giant animals of South America, the development of whales, and the battles for control of land between the survivors of the apocalypse at the end of the Cretaceous period (parts 5, 2, and 1, if I remember correctly).

This was produced by the BBC, following its big success with Walking with Dinosaurs. It's got the same mix of imagined local filmed drama, a la Wild Kingdom, with some basic paleontological exposition. The live action stuff is mostly realistic and there seems to have been considerable research on the backdrop. Each part is based on the fossil records of a particular ___location. I doubt this sequel was such a big hit, but for the reasons I've suggested above (and the general unfamiliarity of what you'll see), probably more valuable and educational.