Cryptozoology fake documentaries: 4 From best to worst.

Ah, fake documentaries, those 1 hour and a half long programs that you see when you feel like you have time from your life that you would like to waste in something that you would only buy as a kid. Sometimes, you can watch one and appreciate the effort that went into the program, despite this being fake. Other times, you can't help but laugh at how cringe-worthy and horrible some of the decisions taken by the filmmakers were. But at the end of the day, you can't help but to think once you are done "yeah, this is bullshit".

Today, I'm going to make a ranking of 4 fake doc's to see if all of them are just bullshit fests made exclusively to give 10 year old wet dreams about what the government is hiding from them, or if there are at least some redeeming qualities in these programs. Why only 4? Because I'm not willing to spend time of my life watching more of these docs after some stuff I've seen!
So, sit back, grab refreshments, your criptozoology books and maybe a tinfoil hat, because we are going to review 4 fake docs from best to worst.

1) The Last Dragon/Dragons: A Fantasy Made Real/Dragon's World. 

We start off with this 1 hour and 40 minute long documentary made in 2004 created by Charlie Foley, directed by Justin Hardy, narrated in the US by Patrick Stewart (Ian Holm in the UK) and broadcasted on Animal Planet. The documentary centers around 2 stories: One is a group of scientists lead by Dr. Tanner, that are working on a misterious creature's frozen carcass (later revealed to be a young female mountain dragon) and the other the evolution of dragons, done by computer generated images, showing their evolution, the different species, adaptations, anatomy and lifestyles of these animals. 

The program is very clever at how it's narrative plays out. We start the story of these prehistoric dragons 65 million years ago, we see how the mother of this baby dragon sacrifices herself to save it from a T. rex , then we cut to Dr. Tanner showing his hypothesis to his fellow scientists of a large creature with claws big enough to injure a T. rex's skull and burn it, but nobody beleaves him, which ruins his reputation. Then, as the team is sent to investigate the carcass and they reveal the secrets behind the creature's anatomy, the CGI bits go along with it, with it's own narrative reflecting said discoveries until the last find where it coincides with the last bit of computer generated story. In most forms of media, this would turn out a mess, but here, is almost Nolan-type writing with a very nice payoff. This structure even allows for the documentary to show some character arcs and even give the story personality, to the point that there are even humor bits scattered through the documentary.

The production values do hold up after so many years. Despite the use of CGI, there are attempts of practical imagery whenever possible. From a full-sized young dragon that they preform the autopsy on, to a pile of eggs from the dragons in the mountain. From dragon vomit in the time where the prehistoric juvenile in the first story throws up to make himself lighter and learn how to fly to escape a bigger dragon that pursues him, to a tiger carcass maquette that the Chinese dragon in the bamboo forests cooks and eats. The CGI itself is not that bad. It is made by the company that brought us the effects for the Walking With Dinosaurs series (not the movie, that shit sucks) and Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (In my opinion, the best Harry Potter movie). While you can clearly tell is CGI, they don't let it be seen too close to the camera, so you don't examine details that weren't up to par yet. And the fact that the backgrounds in the program are filmed and not computer generated, only further helps to convey the realism of the effects. That, and you can really tell the filmmakers put emphasis on the realism of the movements of the animals by looking at real animals as models, with pretty decent results.  

The dragons themselves are a mix bag design-wise. Surprisingly, they where designed by paleoartist John Sibbick, and they match the type of environment they live in. There are 4 types of dragons seen in th program: Smaug, Toothless an Falc... oh, oups, sorry, wrong media, lol. There's a 2 legged dragon, which is the north american prehistoric one, that out of all is my personal favorite, as it kind of looks like a theropod dinosaur with horns, wings and the ability to spit fire. Then there's the marine dragon, that makes a brief appearance to show how did dragons survive the K/T extinction that killed off the dinosaurs. Then there's the forest dragon, a long and slender creature that stalks in the forest and has adapted his flight bladders to mimic other creature's calls to lure either prey or competition, with deadly results. It is also the dragon that supposedly gave rise to the Chinese dragon myths. And lastly, there's the mountain dragon from the Carpathian Mountains, that fights for survival in harsh conditions. Is also the type of dragon that get's more focus and the one the scientists investigate to prove it's existence. I got to say, I think this dragon is my least favorite design. I don't know what it is, maybe the shape of the head, maybe the proportions. I don't know, something about it doesn't seem right. But is not a terrible design, so I can watch it fine. 

With all of this talk of dragons, you would think the human stuff with the scientists is terrible. But surprisingly, it isn't. The actors they got to play the scientists are not bad, they do a serviceable job. Dr. Tanner is the main character and he is given something to work with. His reputation is threatened very early on, giving him character motivation and some relatability to side with him. Then he is given the chance to examine the dragon carcass, and you see him very excited about it, almost wanting to say it's a dragon, but being weighed down by the facts and the scientific method that does not allow for the imagination to run free. By the time they do discover the cave with the large female in it, you do feel his joy discovering this creature he only thought they where mythical. And the fact that the dragon story ends at the same time as he makes the discovery, you do feel this weight to the situation. So he comes from a scientist that is made fun of to a famous one that made the discovery of a lifetime. A character arc in a cryptozoology fake documentary, who knew?. 

Even the soundtrack is really good. Composed by Richard Blair Oliphant, the score integrates some really catchy and epic orchestra and choirs, giving it a medieval, church-like sound and making the experience of the viewer enhanced greatly. There's the scene, with the mountain dragons, when they are preforming a mating ritual like sea birds, in which they fly very high making air acrobatics, then they lock claws and free fall into the ground in a test of faith to let go a fire blast just before reaching the ground. The score and scene themselves are downright beautiful. So much so that they used that soundtrack as the intro music. 

For the humans, there's this almost independent rock music-like theme, that kind of emphasizes the investigation and the race against time to find these remains before the Museum Dr. Tanner works in takes the specimens away. 

With all of that said, let's get to my issues with the documentary, because yeah, there are some flaws. While Dr. Tanner is given a character arc throughout the program, I do wish the other 2 scientists where given one as well. They are mostly there just to serve as the guys that don't beleave whatever Tanner is saying. They do beleave him at the end, so I guess there's a bit of an arc there, but is not very focused on. I don't think they even have names. I wish they gave some development to these characters. 

While most of the dragons do have some stories to tell, I wish they worked in some them a bit more. The prehistoric dragon has a story, the marine one has barely any time given to him where it does little more than just swim, the Chinese dragon just has a failed attempt at hunting and kills it's competition (a bengal tiger) only to loose at the end because of humans, and the mountain dragon is the one that really get's developed. I wish the other 2 middle chapters got more development. Like seeing the marine dragon fight off sharks, or perhaps fight with other dragons over territory. Or show the forest dragon use it's mimic abilities to lure a mate and engage on a courtship ritual. I don't know, it's just a thought that I had. 

There is a bit of an issue regarding the editing too. There are times when the program shows the same clip and edits it in a way to show a different situation is happening. I know CGI was expensive back in the day, and still is, but I think they could have done a couple more animations for that. And I also know this documentary is not the first nor the last to do it, but I still think is worth pointing out.

And lastly, and probably my biggest issue with the program, is the very ending. The last part is Dr. Tanner receiving news, a year later after the discovery of the dragons, and he seems very excited about it, he even runs off with the independent rock music theme playing as if it's setting up a second part. But said part never came. So what was the point of that? Did he got promoted? Did they find another dead dragon? Did they find a live Dragon? Did they find another mythical creature only Dr. Tanner beleaved in? Are they using the material to clone a dragon back to life and they need him to supervise the project?. That never got resolved. Is something that puzzled me as a kid, and still puzzles me now. 

But even with all of these issues, the program still works very well. The hard work that went into the program really shows. The story is fairly well constructed, the effects are great for 2004, there's an arc to the main human character, and most importantly, the dragons feel like animals and not monsters. Despite being 100% fiction, it is something based in reality and with scientific rigor, and it can be realistic to the point that they fooled this blogger as a kid of dragons existing. This is one of those rare instances where I would actually recommend seeing this program. It is a very enjoyable one, and bringing the fantasy, to reality (almost). 

Rating: 9/10. 

2) Mermaids: The Body Found.

Mermaids the body found was directed by Sid Bennett and was released in 2012 and broadcasted on Animal Planet. Similar to the previous documentary, it follows the story of a group of 3 scientists working for the NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) that originally where investigating the massive beaching of whales and their potential correlation to the military testing sonar weapons, but after studying the recordings of the whales prior to the beaching, they also found a new sound that they never heard before called "the bloop", and after starting digging, they discovered that this sound was in other recordings of whales before they beach, and after connecting the dots they started to see a pattern and a potential new creature discovered. They then discovered the remains of a weird creature inside of a dead great white shark in South Africa, they started studying the remains to discover that the animal is not something that they ever knew, only to realize that the creature is in fact, the remains of a Mermaid. While all of this is happening, like the dragon documentary, there's a CGI representation explaining how Mermaids evolved, how did they adapted into living in the sea, their relationships with whales and dolphins and how is it that we don't see them anymore, using the (now pretty much outdated) "aquatic ape" theory as a base to explain their evolution. 

With all of this said, and considering the fact that this was also created by Charlie Foley, you would think that this documentary would be just as good, if not better, than the Dragon documentary, right?... RIGHT?

This documentary is a massive, and I mean MASSIVE drop compared to the previous one. Why? well, I think it has to do with one very important factor: It's presentation.

Unlike the other fake doc that was presented like a narrated documentary altering between the scientists with a character arc and the dragon stories to both coincide on a discovery of an event that took place in the past, this time is presented in a much more pretentious way. Because this time there's conspiracy involved, the presentation is far less emotionally investing and most importantly: They try to act like this is legit and not fiction. 

The structure of the narrative is far less emotionally investing, because it is treated like an actual documentary, which is why so many people got fooled by this and sparked controversy between authorities. Instead of having actors playing scientists that we can relate to and have development given to them, these are played like they are real scientists telling their experiences and even having recreated scenes with actors playing the scientists.

In other words, this doc has actors playing scientists played by actors.

And this structure doesn't allow for any character development or arc whatsoever. Most of these scientists act like they are the victims here. Like the story of "The big brother" (that is even referenced in the documentary itself). There's even a "Military guy" that gets "interviewed" in the shadows because he refuses to reveal his identity just to deliver some information about what the government apparently does to the mermaids.
There is no joy in these scientists when they connect stuff, there is no joy or sense of payoff in these scientists when they discover the fact that they discovered a mind-blowing creature that is related to humans, there is no "I FOUND A WING! HAHA! IS ENORMOUS!! AHHHH!". There's nothing of that. Is just told as if the people survived moths in a raft out in the sea. And at the end is almost like they ask the audience "what are you going to do about it?", but we can't do anything, because all of this is fake. Plus, the fact that the main scientist doesn't even show up to share his experiences, it makes all of these people feel very lifeless and dull. In the dragon doc, there where 2 scientists with no development around the one that had, here, nobody get's development.

But enough of that. What about the story?
Well, the story is, again, not treated as a fake documentary or a movie, but instead like something that happened, like an actual documentary. And that's a huge problem, because when you do treat the program that way, it sounds like a pretentious attempt of telling a clearly fake discovery. In the dragon documentary, they talk about the dragons as if they went extinct because of us, something that happened to countless species in the past: Human hunting an extermination.
Here, they treat the mermaids as if they are still alive but the government doesn't want people to know because... reasons. They don't even explain that in the program. It really feels like half the story is missing. There is no "We did this about it", no resolution at the end. It's quite confusing.
The story relies a lot in conspiracy themes and lies about authorities, leaving them in a bad image. And the fact that they never make clear in the program that none of this is real and it made up, you can see why many people bought this. Besides, I don't know about you, but the conspiracy theme sounds like a cheap way to be interesting. And unnecessary too, you can pretty much take a large pottion of the military testing the mermaids and hiding the truth and the doc would not have changed much. 

So that's the human stuff, what about the mermaid stuff?.
The CGI part of the program is mostly based on the "Aquatic Ape Theory" (AAT), that proposes many of the human traits we have are a result of sometime, one of our ancestors spent time in close to the sea. And asks the question of "what if those hominids split, one went to land and the other into the sea?" One becoming man, and the other becoming the mermaid... and another became Trump! (cheap joke is cheap). 

But here's my problem with it: They used whales as a comparison for a mammalian land-sea transition. But I think they should have had a bit of an epiphany there, because from Pachycetus (the land form that is the origin of whales) to creatures like Dorudon (a small, dolphin sized primitive whale) it took at least 20 million years of evolution.
They say in the program that from Apes to Mermaids it only took 7 million years. By comparison, in that time, Pachycetus evolved into species like Ambulocetus. that means, the animal was still (likely) hairy, still had legs instead of flippers and still went to land to rest and give birth. For the Mermaids, they went on a much faster rate, with no explanation. If it was at a reasonable evolutionary pace, they should look like hairy ape-like creatures, with more adaptations to the sea, but really not too advanced to the point of evolving echolocation, something that took whales much longer to evolve. In other words, think of a slightly more aquatic and short haired Chewbacca. And even IF they evolved echolocation, don't you find a huge coincidence that they still look human?. And they had 7 million years to evolve, supposedly the same as us. They are supposedly really intelligent and capable of tool creation, right?. Well, how the hell haven't they evolved like us? How haven't mermaids evolved a complex society? How haven't they evolved cities? Why haven't they evolved politics, war, advanced technology, forms of education, religions, icons, and all of that?. It seems like the show was too busy with being controversial than to answer those questions.

But let's get to the mermaids themselves, How do they look? If Disney taught me anything is that Mermaids look like beautiful women half fish, half hot chick that sing like an early 90's pop star. They would be amazing to be brought to life!.

Well............................................................................

Turns out that the mermaids animal planet gives us are F*CKING CREEPY!.
I don't know what the f*ck happened in the production, but they somehow forgot to make the Mermaids pretty. There are supposedly tales of sailors encountering beautiful women on the sea, did sailors back in the day found life-sucking eyes and completely breast less beings worth f*cking? Cause I really don't. 

I mean, I know what they went for with this design, the large eyeballs are a must have for a creature that lives in the dark, but did nobody in the production stopped to think "I don't know if people are going to like it, man, looks creepy!". You do know kids are going to watch this, right? there's a 90% chance to give them nightmares for a week, at least it gave me back then (and kind of now). 

The CGI for the mermaids is not terrible, but is not good either. I highly doubt that they ever used motion capture for them, because at times the look like character on a video game before motion capture was available. There are also bits of CGI to make other creatures, like a whale, a squid and a Megalodon (don't worry, we'll get to that mockumentary, and boy oh boy I got a talk a lot about it). And you can clearly tell is CGI, because is very stiff, it has no weight to it. Is almost like see balloons crash against each other at times. 

Despite this, there are at least a few attempts of practical imagery on the program. Most notably, pieces of a mermaid carcass that they find inside a great white shark (that is also practical) and they study to discover exactly what it is. And with the hominids at the first mermaid bit, there are humans in ape suits instead of CGI dolls, which is good, even tho the suits themselves look kind of award and almost creepy at times (but not nearly as much as the mermaids). 

Lastly, there is footage of whales and dolphins that is inserted with the mermaids to make them look more realistic. And while many of these shots look pretty, the fact that they sometimes use them without the mermaids just to talk about whales seems lazy. 

Something quite weird about the program is that apparently there was 2 versions of it. You can tell this because the musical scores are different, one of them apparently included mermaids being captured in a circus for an exhibition and one of the actresses that plays one of the "interviewed scientists" is replaced. 

Even the "Bloop" sound, the noise that supposedly is made by mermaids, changes. In fact, that noise has changed a lot throughout the program's existence, from the teaser trailer to the second version. The one in the teaser was really creepy and really sounded like a "bloop". The second sounded like a high pitched voice of a person, and the last sounded closer to the recordings, almost to the point of sounding more machine-produced than animal-made. 

Why 2 version of the program exist, I have no idea. But I feel like perhaps the first one was too controversial or too creepy, so they replaced it for one that was more reasonable and more audience-friendly. 

The score mainly consists of violins and other cord-based instruments, with no themes and/or tunes. Which is a letdown, because a good score would have greatly improved the mockcumentary's quality. If it was up to me, I would have incorporated a lot of choirs, like in the Walking With Beasts episode "Next of Kin", because in that series, the score was very clever in not to use choirs until they got to the episode that focused in hominids, to signify the birth of mankind. Not only that, but I would have done it with female choirs, like the one sometimes heard in the first and third Jurassic Park movies scores, because is signifying something odd, different and new. 

I don't remember the first version's score being much better, but it was indeed different.

But probably the worst part of this score is that Richard went way too lazy in the second version and even used "Sunshine (Adagio in D minor)" composed by John Murphy for the movie Sunshine. You look that song up and it's used in a lot of stuff, from the X-men Origins: Wolverine trailer to shampoo commercials. It is disgraceful to me that a director that I know can compose some kickass music just decides to rip off music that is literally EVERYWERE. 

I do have more stuff to talk about with this mockumentary, but I'll wrap it up with this.

I would lie if I said I didn't liked this documentary when it came out, and I might watch it once or twice more in the future, but when factoring in everything, this documentary doesn't hold a candle to the Dragon one. 

Mermaids: the body found succeeds at making it's story sound like fact, but it's this strength that ultimately turns into it's weakness. The effects are mediocre compared to the dragon mockumentary, there's no character development or relativity, the real life setting and style just sparks more controversy, the story relies too much in conspiracy and big brother analogies instead of having a story with arcs and payoffs, and the overall, it seems like a documentary that tries too hard to be real instead of compelling. I'm not sure if I would recommend this one like the previous one. I don't think is's a good documentary, but is not terrible either. It is not boring, but I think that the fact that it sacrifices character development and a good story for realism and controversy, it just hurts the doc at the end in my eyes.

Rating: 5/10.

3) The Cannibal in the Jungle.

Cannibal in the Jungle was released in 2015 and was transmuted, once again, by Animal Planet. I would give you more information about the people who got involved, like the director, the creator and so on, but I won't because is not writtened anywhere. 

The story is about 3 scientists (Geez, this is a repeated formula, isn't it?) in 1977 (the year when the first Star Wars movie was released) who go into the Jungles of Sumatra. These scientists are ornithologists, and they are investigating the breeding habits of eagles, later to replace their study to look for a very rare species of owl that is beleaved to have gone extinct. But their expedition turns to the worst when apparently one of the scientists went mad and not only murdered his 2 colleagues, but apparently cannibalized them too. He was then captured, taken to the court and found guilty for his crimes. Later, in 2014 (?), it's another team of scientists that starts digging and find that there's more to the case, and, according to the scientist, now spending his life in jail, it wasn't him that committed those murders, but another creature that is lurking in the depths of the jungle. 

Now you may be wondering "Oh, Arturo,Why don't you just watch the mockumentary again to see who directed it?". Well, I would, but I won't, because I can't watch it again. And that's because if I had to describe this fake documentary in 2 words, it would be: 

FUCKING SCARY. 

Probably has to do with the fact that I watched this fake documentary alone and in the middle of the night, but this fake documentary really scared the living shit out of me in various scenes. But one you get through that scare factor and think of the documentary itself, is worth a thought. 

The structure of it plays a lot like your average horror film mixed with a documentary, kind of forensic investigation and some rather tragic facts. The narrative is divided in these 3 structures, and it would be fine, if the payoff at the end was worth it. 

Just in case you don't know, the creature that committed the murders is supposedly a species of hominid that did existed in real life: Homo Florensis, also known as "The Hobbit". But these Hobbits are not at all like Eliah Wood and the did not spend their time smoking pipe weed while saluting Sir Ian McEllen's Gandalf. These hobbits are portrayed here as savage little bastards that in prehistoric times hunted Stegodon (A "small" prehistoric elephant relative), a large species of rodent and fought off a large species of Komodo Dragon-like large lizard (presumably Megalania). At around a meter tall, these little savages faced a tough life. In real life, these guys went extinct at least 10.000 years ago, alongside the other species mentioned. The show, however, asks the question "What if they survived?". You know, the classic "living fossil" trope. And it uses legends from locals to justify this, as usual. Including the "Ebu Gogo", a creature that looks like a small hairy human that sometimes goes to the villages to kill and eat children. And how the people trapped all of the Ebu Gogo in a cave and burned them alive except for 2 that managed to escape, and happened to be male and female, so they fucked and multiplied. And they say that their sons are out there lurking in the deeps of the forest. 

Now, unfortunately for you criptozoologists out there, there's no evidence of Homo Florensis making it passed the extinction 10.000 years ago, and it is very unlikely as we should have at least some form of record of their existence outside of legends of locals. Specially if they are (supposedly) still out there killing horror movie tropes. 

In real life, I highly doubt these little bastards were this violent and scary too. Ugly? Maybe, but not really bloodthirsty assassins as portrayed here. 

Once again, all of these people are all actors, and there's even recreations showing what happened. Again, actors playing scientists playing actors. 

Going back to the story, there's a reason why I put this doc at third place. And it's that at the end of the program, they say that they gathered enough conclusive evidence to get the ornithologist out of prison, only to realize that he died 9 months prior to this. Not only did this turns to be a sad ending, but is insulting when you realize that this doc actually WAS partially based on real life. The Hobbit stuff is made up bullshit, but the Ornithologist did died on prison before enough evidence was gathered to get him out of there. And they even named that owl they were searching in honor of him, because that's a species that actually does exist. They literally used the death of an innocent to tell a bullshit story about killer Homo Florensis. I don't know about you, but to me, it sounds a disgrace to his memory. Animal Planet crossed a line that shouldn't have been crossed. 

The Hobbits themselves are actually never seen up close. Most of the time they are seen from far away, and they do look good. I'm not sure if they are CGI or actors in costumes, or a blend of the 2, but they did made a decent job making them. That's about the only praise I can give this mockumentary. 

The score is mainly composed of horror music. You know, the awful strings and stuff. The typical "WHOOOSH!!!" to show something creepy. Not much to say here other than just lazy stuff. 

Overall, this documentary I did not like. The fact that they used a real life person's innocent death on prison to tell a stupid story about cannibals in the jungle (which just doesn't make any sense by the way, considering these are not people, so they cannot be considered an act of cannibalism as much as hunting) just sounds disgraceful. The effects are nicely handled and the story is decently told, but aside from that, this doc has nothing to offer other than nightmares for a week or more. 

Rating: 4/10.

4) Megalodon, the monster shark lives. 

And now we get to the best doc on this list (XD), Megalodon: the monster shark lives. 

Aired in 2013's shark week on discovery channel, this docufiction starts with an attack on a boat by 3 people and what can potentially be that it caused it (even tho the boat has a HUGE bite mark on it's side with a very visible big shark tooth, but still play the "we don't know what it is" card). A scientist (finally breaking the mold) has an idea of what it could be, so he starts piecing some (hilariously terrible) bits of evidence to finally figure out that the creature behind the attack is a Megalodon, the famous whale-sized shark known to attack and kill even adult whales. So it is up to him to go in an expedition to find this monster before it attacks again. 

This... this docufiction... holy shit. 

If you can't tell by the signs, this documentary is terrible... but it is amazing at the same time on how awful it can be. 

For one, the story has such a stupid setup. So a Megalodon, a massive 50+ ton predator that attacks whales, attacks a small boat with 3 people in there? I don't think it's gonna get much food out of 3 skinny humans. And the remains the weeks after? Lol. It's a boat with a huge shark bite mark, and a huge shark tooth found alongside it. Any rational being can tell you it was a huge fucking shark. But they talk of "considering the variants" and "possibilities", but how are you gonna do that if shit is explained by itself?!.

There are other hilariously atrocious moments in this docufiction piece of crap. 

Just look at these very compelling lines of evidence that are undisputable and 100% real and not poorly photoshoped at all:

Amazing how a whale that got bitten in half, that has gallons and gallons of blood, leaves no blood whatsoever on the sand. And that massive body leaves no traces on the sand of it being washed up on the shore? lol. Furthermore, you can actually see closely how they sloppily used the gaussian blur on photoshop to "blend" the whale's stripes on the belly with the guts, that funny enough, blend into a wrong color of white. 

Is like they literally like they saw this pic: 

They took the guts and placed them over a whale's body. 

But it doesn't stop there, look at this killer photo:

Now just look at that top image. In the program, they say it's a eyewitness's picture of a shark attacking a humpback whale. Not only is it very unlikely that the pic would have this much clarity from an eyewitness, taken from the coast (even with a zoom in it is very unlikely that the photo would be this clear) it is painful obvious that this is a picture of a whale submerging itself after taking a breath of air, and they (poorly) photoshoped a shark's fin and some blood on the water. For one, the fin is way too far from the whale. It doesn't matter how big that fucker is, there is no way that it could attack a whale that it's that far from the shark. Then we see that the color palette is completely off between the whale and shark. The whale is a lot darker than the shark fin. Further more, IF the Megalodon was attacking the whale, there would be A LOT more blood on the water than that. 

And even further more, if a whale was being attacked by the giant shark, there's no way it would be that calm. It should be struggling to breathe and causing a lot of disturbance on the surface, not calmly just dive like nothing is happening.

Then you watch the rest of the show and it's honestly not much better. 

After taking 20 minutes of screen time, they realize that the killer is indeed a megalodon, and what do they decide to do? Instead of informing the government, the NOAA or the fucking military that a whale sized monster shark is loose and it's killing whales and people, the scientist decides to go LOOK FOR IT!. How? Well, with a shit ton of chum, canons to dispense the chum, a lot of technology mambo jambo and a life sized whale decoy. I just love how in the documentary, they say, when building the decoy "The Megalodon hunts humpback whales". And what do they build? a Right Whale decoy. 

They go to look for the shark and you can't help but ask: What are they going to do once they find it?. They keep talking of "if that shark is out there, we are going to find it!" they prepare to look for it, but once they do, you realize that they didn't packed any weapons with them in case something goes wrong. You are literally with all the means to attract and record a massive predator, but not defend yourselves in case shit doesn't go according to plan?. Is like me, bathing in wildebeest blood, taking a camera and going into a lion reserve "to find them". 

And it also doesn't help that you made a massive chum line that extends from miles and miles and you never thought that this bait can wash up on shore, on coasts, on beaches with people in them, all filled with shark sensory porn, making them a place for sharks, including megalodon to go and attack people, drawn to the smell of blood. Granted, in real life, sharks actually kill less people than selfies, but if this documentary operated following logic, it might have had the possibility to be good.

And did I mentioned that the shark appears after hours? It does, and apparently completely submerges an air-filled decoy and drags it thousands of meters below the surface in like 3 minutes. Because if a multi-ton colossal Megalodon was known for something is it's ability to dive extremely fast with a massive balloon on it's jaws.

And if you thought this doc couldn't be any stupider, there's an "after program" a la interview with the scientists of the fake doc and a bunch of actors trying to be scientists and eye witnesses. And it's even more laughable how they constantly proove meg's existence with VIDEO EVIENCE and people go like "in times like these, we can only speculate on what it is", and this serves as a poor attempt to make the scientist look smarter, even tho he is a regular inteligence guy surrounded by fucking idiots.

I can go on and on about how hilariously terrible this doc is, but I'll wrap it up with this. 

Megalodon: The Monster Shark Lives is nothing but a terribly directed and acted disaster that ignores all logic and presents some of the most awful photosoped images as evidence and HORRIBLE CGI, sharknado levels of shit, to pass it as video evidence. The fact that people bought this and beleaved it puzzles me, I think is VERY hard to get fooled by something as poorly done as this.

Here's the best way to watch it: Gather some friends, open some beers and snacks and watch this as a comedy, because yeah, is very easy to laugh at it. I think this is a case of "The Room", that is, something that is so bad that is good in an ironic way. That's the best way to watch and enjoy this piece of shit, because is you take this seriously, it is going to annoy you.

Rating: 2/10

So there you have it, 4 documentaries that treat fantasy as reality. We learned that a few can have some redeeming qualities and be entertaining as long as they are taken as a production of fantasy and not an actual documentary. Some succeed at this, some fail so hard that are unintentional comedies, and some can be so insulting and controversial that is better just skip them all together.

Animal planet should stop making these docufictions and start making actual documentaries again, but if they are going to keep making these, make them well with good effects, competent stories, catchy soundtracks and characters that make us beleave that these products of fiction might not be so fake after all.  

As always, thank you so much for reading, look froward to more articles and reviews from me in the future. You guys are the best, thank you and have an awesome day ;).

T. rex vs Spinosaurus rematch for Jurassic World 2: One of the worst ideas of the franchise?

Now I've been hearing about a petition that wants to have a rematch between the Spinosaurus and the Tyrannosaurus rex for the sequel for the finantially (and critically, to an extent) succesful Jurassic World. Now, the reason for it is mainly because to make up for the now infamous match between the T. rex and the spinosaurus in the third installment of the franchise: Jurassic park III, were a spinosaurus killed a T. rex by breaking it's neck.

But is it really a good idea? is it really what the story needs? is it what the fans need? is it what the franchise needs? will this make it into a good movie?:

The answer to all of these questions is simple: 

Now look, you may be thinking "oh look! a spino fanboy who doesn't want to see it's favourite dinosaur getting killed!" but that's a 100% wrong statement. I like the T. rex FAR more than the spinosaurus in the JP universe, I always have and always will. What I am is a simple fan of the franchise that wants nothing but the best for the future of it, so if there is something that is threating that, I can at least express my opinion against it.

Drawing done by your humble blogger, me. 

And I care because the person that iniciated this petition apparently tweeted it to Colin Trevorrow, at what he responded "noted, my friend". Now this doesn't mean the fight will happen or that he's in favor of the fight, it just means Trevorrow knows the petition exists. And it doesn't even mean he will consider it, it might as well just a PR stunt and show how much does he care about the fanbase.

Also, take into account, I'm not here to change your mind about anything. It would be really easy for me to say "diz idea sukz, iz tha worzt!" with no reason. But I'll just simply offer reasons as to why this idea is the stupidest thing it could ever happen to the franchise. So, without further due, let's begin: 

1) It would tear appart the comunity of fans of the franchise. 

Now it is common knoledge that, for the mayority of the fans, the Spinosaurus and T. rex match in Jurassic Park 3 was awful in most ways. Wether it was the length of the fight, the outcome, the animation, among others, fans seem to not put this fight in their favourite moments of the franchise. Now, it is true that some do like this match, but it's clear that does not represent the mayority of fan's opinions. And since that moment, arguments in forums, facebook posts and comment sections on youtube have debated who would win in a fight between the 2 theropods for over 14 years, dividing the fanbase almost to the point of being on the side of the T.rex or Spinosaurus. 

But most of us have grown up, have matured, and have mooved on since then to focus on Jurassic World. And is clear that the vast mayority of fans have loved the final showdown between the Indominus rex, the Velociraptor named Blue, and the T. rex (myself included). 

The problem with a rematch happening between the T. rex and the Spinosaurus in JW2 is simple: It would spark the debate between fans again. Now the people that support the rematch say the fights "will happen regardless of the rematch being there or not", but it's obvious that the controversy will be A LOT worse if it did happened. It is easy to imagine the argument "but the fight in JW2 was more realistic because the T.rex won!" "Shut up, the spinosaurus is bigger and stronger!". Is like opening a scar and pouring salt into it, the result is going to be nasty.

2) There's no reason for it, specially when other forms of media have already done it. 

Something that the people that support the rematch say to try to make it have sense is that "The franchise humilliated it's icon, that's why it's bad and it won't work, because it needs the T. rex to win again". 

.......

WTF?, seriously, that's one of the stupidest things I've heard in my life. It would have made sense if it was after Jurassic Park III, but the thing is: Jurassic World happened, and it's obvious the T. rex no longer suffers humilliation. Just look at the ending, it's beautiful, and shows how the T. rex is Queen of Nublar again.

But the people that support the fight say "No, the fight in Jurassic World wasn't enough, it has to be against Spinosaurus!".

That sounds very desperate and childish. Is scrapping the bottom of the barril looking for arguments that, simply put, just don't hold up. It shows to me that the people we are dealing with are not serious and just fanboys that are still, for some reason, pissed off about a stupid moment 15 years ago. 

And is not like other forms of media didn't do it justice already. 

Primal carnage, for example. There's an actually pretty well done promotional video showing the rematch where the T. rex wins. 

Or in Ice Age 3, there's a fight between momma T. rex and an oversized Baryonix (that kinda looks like I. rex) and she pushes it into a cliff. Is basially the same type of fight.

Hell, even in the JP franchise it already happened! In a little Gem called Jurassic Park Operation Genesis. When the T. rex and Spino meet, they can go either way for either dinosaur, so it's already pointless to take the fight in a movie setting. 

See? It already happened!.

So Jurassic World 2, following these examples, would be literally ripping off less good and chilish sources. Following a now tired cliché. And it's a very bad sign when a movie repeats the same mistake it did in it's worst movie. Because that's all what the Jurassic Park franchise it's all about, just pleasing fanboys that wanted to see the rematch in a movie that was Jurassic Park (that's sarcasm btw). 

3) This is not a fight the T. rex can win.

Let's face it people, for what they showed us in Jurassic Park 3, the Spinosaurus is way too much of a monster for the T, rex to win. 

Now yes, I know, if this fight happened in real life, the fight would have ended as soon as the T. rex clamped it's jaws around spino's neck. But this is Jurassic Park, the creatures they are potraying are obviously not accurate (if they were, the spino wouldn't even fight the T. rex). 

The spinosaurus is potrayed as a ruthless killing machine that can take out just about every dinosaur, its unlikely a T. rex can take it out. And it is true the T. rex in Jurassic Park III wasn't fully grown, but is very desperate to beleave a 40 foot long Tyrannosaurus will succed were a 37 foot long one failed. Again, I'm a huge fan of the T. rex, but realistically speaking, it's very implausible. 

So following logic, if the rematch were to happen (for some reason) and the spinosaurus won, it would make matters worse, and making the objective of the fight, entirely pointless.

4) It insults the characters of the creatures and the franchise overall. 

I don't know how nobody has noticed this, but this is really a denigration of the franchise we love and the dinosaurs in it. This is Jurassic Park, not rocky. This is a franchise that its supposed to reflect the message of man over nature, the corruption of man when it tries to take too much without noticing, the consecuences that follow the attempt of creating life, all in an enjoyable movie. Not just dinosaur fights and spectacle. Even Jurassic World understood this and found a balance between the 2 and present it on a different way (while Jurassic Park 3 didn't). Since when did we forgot these are animals and not Kaijus?. 

And it's not like the petition has a good story incuding the fight, it's just the fight, for all they care, the movie could be absolute garbage, even worse than Jurassic Park III, but as long as it has that fight "it's going to work". That's both selfish and lazy.

A rematch doesn't sound like a Jurassic Park fan wants, it sounds more like a person THINKS a Jurassic Park movie wants. Now granted, this is not the mayority of the franchise who want the fight, the petition represents a fraction of the franchise. It has 4000 likes, by contrast, the official Jurassic Park Facebook page has over 8 million. That means: over 0.05% of the fanbase wants this fight. And that's not counting the fans that don't use facebook. 

Furthermore, the people that support the fight use the argument of "it will be good for publicity". DUDE!! It's a Jurassic Park movie we are talking about! Jurassic World last year made 1.6 billion dollars at the worldwide box office, it's currently on the number 4 spot as the highest grossing film OF ALL TIME!!! and it didn't sell just because of the climatic battle at the end, so it's obvious a Jurassic Park film does not sell just because there's a fight on it, it sells on itself, making that argument pointless yet again. 

I could go on and on about why this idea is horrendous in every sense of the word (hell, I might edit this post and add more reasons). But I'll conclude this for now. So overall, if you read this, and sat through it, and you were convinced by at least one of these points, then you may want to start thinking "You know what? Maybe this idea is not good at all". Because that's the reality: The arguments offered in favor of the fight are simply awful, childish, biased, fanboyistic, selfish, lazy poorly thought out and they just don't hold up at all. 

Thank you so much for reading and have a great day. 

A plot for the Jurassic world sequel writed by a fan.

Disclaimer: This is a Fanmade, 100% unoficial plot. DO NOT take any of this as fact or official information. Is purely an experiment made for fun and for fun only. Also, this is a work in progress that will change with more oficial information that will be released in the future and when I get more ideas to fill in the story gaps that I might leave. 

So The director of the Jurassic World sequel was announced, it will be the spanish director Juan Antonio Bayona, who has done movies like "The impossible", "The Orphanage" and the upcoming "A monster calls". All of these movies have been critically succesfull, including the latter, showing Bayona's skill as a director, which makes him a very good choice to direct a sequel.

Because of this, many fan have started to ask for many things to put in the movie. Some are 100% necessary in my opinion, like more practical effects, a solid script, more developement of the characters, a great musical score, and a good story. Some though, are not only unnecessary, but down right stupid and insulting, like certain rematch between 2 of the largest predators in the franchise (of course, the T. rex and the Spinosaurus). 

But something that is pretty uncertain in my opinion is how the plot will play. So far, we know it will have to do with the interaction of humans and the dinosaurs. Colin Trevorrow, who was the director of the previous movie and will come back as a writter and producer of the new film, has said in an interview that it will be kinda based on a line said by Alan Grant in the first film "Dinosaurs and man 2 species separated by 65 milion years and now suddenly coexisting, how can we possibly get an idea of what to expect'". Despite the fact that scouting locations have begun on Hawaii once again, it won't be more of "dinosaurs runing around eating people", acording to Trevorrow, "that get's old pretty fast" (something I agree with entirely). There's also the fact that the other locations include Wales and possibly England (they will shoot on pinewood studios, where The Force Awakens was shot). He has also said that Claire Dearing, played by Bryce Dallas Howard, will be the main character of the film. We know that likely other companies will be able to create dinosaurs and they will be used for something other than the military. 

Taking these concepts, I've made a story for fun, that makes an attempt of taking these ideas and putting them togeather in a way that sounds the least silly and reasonable, at least for the franchise's standards. 

So my Idea goes like this: 

After the events of JW, Wu escapes with the embryos. He sales them to different companies that specialize in genetics for different applications. He shows them how to bring back dinosaurs to life. And they are fast learners, because in a few months, dinosaurs are more of a phenomena than Gangnham style in 2012. They are everywhere, for different purposes. Some, the smaller ones, are genetically modified to be more docile and serve as cool pets, not only from different species, but different colors, shapes, sizes and even feathers (c'mon, we all knew this day would come). 

Some are created for wildlife reserves people pay to go and feed, pet and interact with them in a cool way (bringing the wonderment factor to the film). But these are controlled because they have herbivores only. 

Where are the predators, you may ask? Simple, they are being researched by scientists. Turns out that these dinosaurs have found the perfection in healing properties. Like crocs, they are practically immune to infections. Like birds, they heal broken bones in very short time. This serves as an advantage for the soldiers in combat. Taking the militarized dinos concept in a believable way (you know, instead of seeing Raptors with shotguns and T. rexes used as tanks, wich sounds just stupid). And the hybrids exist.... but they are mostly to study their healing properties, that's it (And with some solid creature design, we can have them so they look simmplistic and believable instead of ridiculous and over the top, like the ones from the Kenner Chaos Effect toyline). 

They established that Owen and Claire are a couple at the end of Jurassic World, right? well, months of relationship have made their relationship stronger. They find lots of things they didn't knew they had in common. But here's the deal. Claire, supposedly being the main character of the film, due to her rather control-freak like personality, has taken a job with the hireups in a really important company. But Owen isn't really a big fan of the idea. In fact, he's not a fan of the dinosaurs being treated as a commercial product, so he has joined a rather large group of people that are against the idea. Like Peta, but even larger in scale (and you can have Ian Malcom as the leader of the group if you really want fan service). Both Claire and Owen debate whether or not the way humans treat this animals is right or not, keeping the "Man Plays God" theme that carries the franchise, and with some clever writing it can be like the dinner table in Jurassic Park.

Now this is something that I have to to talk about. You may be thinking "oh, the people Owen is with are right, those scientists are so dumb", but that's the thing, in order for this concept to work, nobody can be on the right side. Otherwise, it sounds preachy, and that becomes annoying. What this should be is both sides be wrong, but have reasons to think that way, understand where they come from to have that mindset. Thus, you can have both sides go to far lengths to proove their point. Like the "PETA" type people go to exesive measures to proove they are right, and the scientists show that what they are doing could save many.
Are you able to sacrifice your morality to save millions of people? Or you are willing to, say, put these creatures in an enviorement, in a world that is no longer theirs?.

Think less Batman v Superman and more Capitain America: Civil War.

And also, another topic I need to adress is the feathered dinoaurs. This is a very divisive topic, some people are reluctant to it, some are deseperate for them, but here's the thing. Feathered dinosaurs CAN work, if certain conditions are given. For one, as I explained in another post, is a good design that doesn't look like a miserable chicken or pigeon. But there's also the story aspect. What can feathered dinosaurs bring to the story? What can they add? Do they take away from the movie? Do they have a menaing?.
Many paleofans seem to forget that all of those things are important factors that play out into a story and focus only on the accuracy because they whine a lot about Jurassic World. But that's essentially like Darth Maul's lightsaber. It would look pretty, it would look cool, but is shallow, empty and meaningless. I want to go Kylo ren's lightaber. It looks cool, it looks pretty, but it also says something about Kylo Ren as a character being unstable, conflicted, broken.

And thus, feathered dinosaurs can have a meaning. They are a simbolism of man's corruption hiding behind something that looks pretty. A seemingly harmless mask which man's worst aspect hides behind of.

But that alone is not enough, so here's my idea. At the begining of the film, Owen is called by Ingen to supervise a new breed of the classic raptor, a more accurate one, feathered, non pronated handed, etc.. They plan to get this new raptor with the classic JP raptor, but turns out the new dinosaur is too agressive, so they have to separate it from the classic raptor. Owen is with the PETA-like group, and he should leave Ingen, but he can't leave his raptor alone with the feathered "bully". He doesn't know what ingen employees can do to it. And the whole film has this subplot of Owen being torn between staying with his ideals or his raptor. And the raptors can have a bit of an arc with the JP raptor being afraid of the feathered one, as this almost kills it, and at the climax the JP raptor can get through it's fear and stand up to this raptor when is loose and is threatning Owen.

With that, let's go back to the main story.

The conflicts are rising between both sides to the point that the "protesters" go to a high security facility and let the dinosaurs loose, and THEN is when shit hits the fan. Because between these arguments and conflicts, they forgot to consider that these are still wild animals, some of them predators, and this is when stuff goes down.

Now many fans have suggested new dinosaurs to be in the movie. Carcharodontosaurus, Giganotosaurus, the return of Spinosaurus, Acrocantosaurus, Baryonix, Suchomimus, Allosaurus, Oviraptor, Utahraptor, Cryolophosaurus, even Archeopterix and Microraptor. But here's the thing...

None of those dinosaurs are unique enough to work... at all.

I'm not saying that these dinosaurs are not awesome, they are, like all dinosaurs (and animals in general really), but let's be honest here: most of these are just a slightly different versions of dinosaurs we know. Some of these are esentially T. rex, some are less impressive versions of Spinosaurus (and Spinosaurus itself, I'm sure, is not something general audiences want to see again, as it was completly wasted and awfuly used in Jurassic Park III, let alone fight a T. rex again, cause that's a horrendous idea in every sense of the word, as I explained in a previous post), some are lesser version of the Indominus Rex, some are copies of the dilophosaurus, the velociraptor and even the compys. They would add nothing that we haven't seen before, and the only way they could is giving them some unnatural hability like camuflaging, spitting something, make it bigger/smaller, etc., but this would only give even more reason for accuracy-obsessive-compulsives to trash the film. Thus, all of those dinos are useless to make an interesting creature, cause there's very little outside of asthetics that they can add to the film.

There is one, however, that has the chance to work, because of how weird and unique it is and because it is known and it is worth trying: Carnotaurus.

Why? Well, because it's bigger than a raptor but smaller than a T. rex. It is fast, but it has weakneses, like not being able to turn fast enough. It has binocular vission, it was most likely entirely scaly, with osteoderms, a cool killing method that uses an axe motion, that can be terrifying by tearing a person appart violently and savagely, and horns that can send a person several meter away.
All of that is more unique than anything proposed so far.

Therizinosaurus would be a good adition too, because it's unique. Is not a copy or less interesting version of an already existing dinosaur. 

Now the story from there and the climax I still have to think about, but the point of it is to give both conflicting sides an arc. Realizing that these are creatures that do not belong to anywhere but the islands, and is the islands where they send them. In other words, man trying to clean a bit of his own mess. Setting up the next movie, which will center around whether or not they should kill them all or not.

I will fill in some gaps and change some parts as more information and more ideas of mine appear, but that's what the basic structure stands for now.

Thank you so much for reading and have a great day. 

How to custom model and paint your Jurassic World Chomping T rex

So today I want to make something a little different for you. A tutorial on how to customize your chomping t rex to look much better. As well as talk a little bit about the hasbro toyline in general.

Is not surprise to anyone that Hasbro made a horrendous job with their Jurassic World toys. For a movie that was massively succesful finantially, being on the fourth spot of the highest grossing films of all time and being considered generally as a fun monster blockbuster by most people (myself included), the toyline made by Hasbro doesn't live up to the success of the film.

Screw holes, poor paint jobs, balancing issues, weak springs and weird proportions make most of the toys of the toyline be an absolute joke when compared to the glory days of the Kenner in the 90's. There are some redeaming toys in the toyline that are worth purchasing, such as the bad boy Indominus and most of the toys in the growler line, but the mayority of the others are pretty underwhelming to say the least. And one of those toys is the chomping t rex.

The chomping t rex has lots of flaws. It doesn't resemble the t rex we all know and love barely at all, it has a poor paint job, a weird looking jaw and feet as well as odd proportions in general. It also had a pretty weak jaw at the moment of it's release, but a couple of months ago, hasbro secretly released a new reiteration with a stronger jaw spring, basically saying "Haha! Fuck you!" to the people who bought the toy at first. The way to see if the toy has a strong spring is to test it in store.

Today, I'm going to show you how you can improove this toy and fix some of it's flaws. In this ocation, I'm going to customize it as the bull tyrannosaurus from The lost world: Jurassic park. You can go other ways, painting it as the female tyrannosaurus, the subadult from Jurassic Park 3, rexy from the first movie or rexy from Jurassic World.

1) Gathering the materials. 

The things you will need for the custom are

- A chomping rex (hopefuly, the stronger springed one).
-Acrylic paint.
-Molding paste.
-Different sized brushes.
-Sissors or a small knife.
-Hot silicone or any other material that glues and dries fast.
-A plastic sqare so you can mix colours.
-Toilet paper.
-A bucket of water (you can also use a glass of water).

2) Unboxing the toy. 

Carefully unbox the dinosaur using the sissors. Try as much as possible not to scratch the toy, but if it happens anyway you can cover it with paint. DO NOT attach the tail to the body yet. 

3) Plastic surgery!

Next, you are going to take the molding paste and you are going to use it to improove the toy's look. This process can't take too long, otherwise the molding paste, drying with air, is going to get hard and any work that needs to be made will then become impossible. I strongly reccomend aplying molding paste to the body and tail separatedly as it will be easier to work with. 

The places you will need to use molding paste are in the jaw, the back, the belly and the tail. In case one of the pieces doesn't stick to the figure, use hot silicone or any fast glue. If you are going to customize the t rex like the bull t rex, you will also put a piece of molding paste in the throaght and the top of the snout. The male tyrannosaurus of the JP universe has a larger throaght pouch than the female, as well as more bumps on the face and more pronounced ridges on the top of the snout. Use pictures of the tyrannosaurus from the film to get as much accuracy as possible. 

4) Now the paint. 

This is probably the most difficult part about the customing process. After you selected the colours for your custom, is paint time. I reccomend not painting the complete body of the animal inmediately. Instead, paint the animal by sections. That way you get a pretty good idea what the rest of the body should go like. If you need to blur or blend the colours, use your finger to mix the colours or give a faithing effect. Again, sculptures and models are the best way to get as much accuracy with films as possible. Look for the animatronics that Stan Winston Studios made, or very faithful sculptures. 

Repeat the process for all the body and your chomping should look a bit more decent of a toy. 

I hope this tutorial serves you well, and hopefuly your chomping now looks like a t rex. Thank you and have a great day.