Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see the badges, ratings breakdowns, and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Reviews7
Clark J Holloway's rating
Look, I'm a science geek. I get it. But this is a reality TV show. It's entertainment, not science. Looking to a reality TV show for real science would be like looking to a reality TV show to find a decent president. It just ain't happening.
Some of my fellow geeks and nerds are complaining that this show is bad science and promotes illegal fossil hunting. I'd say those are unfair complaints. Again, don't look to TV reality shows for science. If you don't find the show entertaining then don't watch it, but there's little point in complaining that the show isn't something that it wasn't intended to be. And the fact is that the fossil hunting on this show is perfectly legal in the jurisdictions where the show was filmed. The fossil hunters are land owners hunting on their own land, or have the permission of the land owners to hunt fossils. There's nothing illegal going on that I can see.
The more general complaint is that the commercialization of fossils is harmful to science. But the fact is that if these land owners and hunters weren't looking for these fossils they'd erode to dust within fairly short order. The fossils being found on the show are already partially exposed to the elements or are near the surface, and the reason they're being found is because the land is rapidly eroding and uncovering them. If they aren't dug up by someone they'll soon be lost to science anyway.
The Society for Vertebrate Paleontology has written a letter to the Discovery Channel complaining about commercialized fossil hunting in general, and about this show in particular because the cast lacks diversity (there are only a few women and one possible person of color featured on the show) and some of the show's promotional material included reference to a felon who has been convicted of fossil theft.
I'm as sensitive to diversity as the next liberal geek, but just how many women or people of color own ranch land in Montana, Wyoming, or South Dakota who are also interested in fossil hunting as a means of making a living? Keeping the show within legal bounds appears to be the limiting factor on diversity, not any conscious decision on the part of the Discovery Channel. And so far I've seen no actual mention of the felon they were complaining about in the show, so maybe the letter from the SVP had some positive impact.
My advice is to watch the show if you're interested in amateur fossil hunting. Avoid it if the lack of real science turns you off (and please avoid voting reality TV show stars into high political office). But remember that if these guys weren't digging these fossils up no one else would, and they'd be lost to both erosion and science.
Some of my fellow geeks and nerds are complaining that this show is bad science and promotes illegal fossil hunting. I'd say those are unfair complaints. Again, don't look to TV reality shows for science. If you don't find the show entertaining then don't watch it, but there's little point in complaining that the show isn't something that it wasn't intended to be. And the fact is that the fossil hunting on this show is perfectly legal in the jurisdictions where the show was filmed. The fossil hunters are land owners hunting on their own land, or have the permission of the land owners to hunt fossils. There's nothing illegal going on that I can see.
The more general complaint is that the commercialization of fossils is harmful to science. But the fact is that if these land owners and hunters weren't looking for these fossils they'd erode to dust within fairly short order. The fossils being found on the show are already partially exposed to the elements or are near the surface, and the reason they're being found is because the land is rapidly eroding and uncovering them. If they aren't dug up by someone they'll soon be lost to science anyway.
The Society for Vertebrate Paleontology has written a letter to the Discovery Channel complaining about commercialized fossil hunting in general, and about this show in particular because the cast lacks diversity (there are only a few women and one possible person of color featured on the show) and some of the show's promotional material included reference to a felon who has been convicted of fossil theft.
I'm as sensitive to diversity as the next liberal geek, but just how many women or people of color own ranch land in Montana, Wyoming, or South Dakota who are also interested in fossil hunting as a means of making a living? Keeping the show within legal bounds appears to be the limiting factor on diversity, not any conscious decision on the part of the Discovery Channel. And so far I've seen no actual mention of the felon they were complaining about in the show, so maybe the letter from the SVP had some positive impact.
My advice is to watch the show if you're interested in amateur fossil hunting. Avoid it if the lack of real science turns you off (and please avoid voting reality TV show stars into high political office). But remember that if these guys weren't digging these fossils up no one else would, and they'd be lost to both erosion and science.
A competent, albeit strictly one-sided, retelling of Napoleon's Hundred Days, though the attempts at rousing the audience's sympathy for the tragic figure of Napoleon are rather transparent. The film betrays its stage bound origins at times, but Gustaf Gründgens gives a suitably oily performance as the effete Fouché and the battle scenes are excitingly photographed.
German actor Werner Krauss, perhaps better known today as Dr. Caligari in the 1920 silent horror film, The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, had played Napoleon once before on film in Napoleon auf St. Helena (1929) and gives a fairly convincing performance here. He bears a strong resemblance to the more corpulent Emperor during his later days, and his portrayal of Napoleon's distress over the separation from his son is certainly moving.
German actor Werner Krauss, perhaps better known today as Dr. Caligari in the 1920 silent horror film, The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, had played Napoleon once before on film in Napoleon auf St. Helena (1929) and gives a fairly convincing performance here. He bears a strong resemblance to the more corpulent Emperor during his later days, and his portrayal of Napoleon's distress over the separation from his son is certainly moving.
ARE WE CIVILIZED? stands as a fairly obvious anti-Nazi propaganda piece, but it is surprising pertinent in its warnings about the dangers of people surrendering their civil rights in this post 9-11 world. Perhaps its greatest failing is that its message is somewhat diminished by the nature of the historical events and personages used to describe mankind's progress towards civilization. The film seems to want to have it both ways: while great leaders advance civilization, the persistence of the people while suffering under the rule of dangerous warlords advances civilization as well. Under this theory, the extraordinary suffering humanity will soon endure through the upcoming Second World War could almost be seen as a good thing.