I think you are refering to a BBC/Discovery TV show called "Dragons: A Fantasy Made Real" that was done with special effects by the same guys who did the "Walking with Dinosaurs" series.
It's a purely speculative fiction show, presented in a fake documentary fashion, with narration by Patrick Stewart (for US release) or Ian Holm (UK version). In the show, scientists uncover a perfectly preserved dragon in the Carpathian mountains, along with some 15th century knights, and it goes into pseudo-scientific 'explanations' of how it might have been possible for creatures weighing half a ton to actually fly and breathe fire.
The whole thing was fictional, and the 'science' spurious at best, but since it was presented in what appeared to be a documentary style, it could be easy for someone not familiar with biology or physics or just flipping past the channel, to conclude that it was a genuine nature show.
It is perhaps irresponsible for channels like Discovery or Animal Planet to show 'mockumentaries' like this without suitable disclaimers, but leaving aside the accuracy of the science or hoax-like production questions, the show itself was very well done, with some excellent animation and inventive 'ecology'.
2006-10-06 04:07:16
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Carpathian Mountains Dragon
2016-10-17 03:50:42
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
For the best answers, search on this site https://shorturl.im/ayiXM
Lakers: I agree it has to be Odom. He is the model of inconsistency. When he is playing aggressively, he is among the best SFs in the NBA. In last year's playoffs the Lakers found their stride when Odom decided to show up in the Nuggets series. Cavs: I think Mo Williams and Jamison are both good choices, but I'm gonna go with Shaq. If he can play inspired ball in these playoffs he could be the difference maker, especially against a possible showdown with Howard. If they do end up against the Lakers in the Finals, his size in the middle would be essential to counter the their giant frontline. Magic: Vince Carter. He's been struggling from the 3 in the playoff and they are going to need him to knock those down as the playoffs progress. He also needs to be more of a playmaker which isn't his biggest strength. He's done a good job this season in the fourth quarter and he needs to continue being that go to guy. He can create his own shot and has shown an impressive ability for hitting clutch shots.. Suns: Jason Richardson. I'm not sure the exact stat, but the Suns have a remarkable record when JRich can go for 20+. He is an uselfish guy so he needs to make sure to look for his own shot and be that third scoreer they desperately need. Celtics: Rasheed. He's been an underachiever, but he needs to get it going if the Celtics want to get past the Cavs. Like you mentioned, he is capable of upping his game. They need him off the bench to bring some energy, D, and some clutch 3s. Jazz: I think the Jazz are toast. They don't have the length to compete with the Lakers. CJ Miles is probably the X-factor. He's done a admirable job in the playoffs thus far. If he can give them 15-20 pts/gm the Jazz might be able to make this an interesting series. Hawks: Same as the Jazz, no chance at winning this series. They need 2 or 3 X-factors to step up. Al Horford needs to be a consistent presence in the post. He is too passive and needs to be a force on the boards. He doesn't need to get them 20+ points, but they need him to fight for every rebound. If he could get 12-15 gm that would definitely help their chances. It won't be enough to win the series, but maybe they can win a game or 2. Spurs: George Hill. They need one of the young guys to take some of the pressure off. He has proven he is capable of taking on a significant role, but needs to do it on a nightly basis. Richard Jefferson is another guy the Spurs need some production from. He's done a good job on certain nights, but he needs to continue to be aggressive on both ends of the court each and every night. He is another guy that tends to be passive and overly unselfish.
2016-04-08 07:57:29
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I presume you are asking a serious question.
Fire breathing dragons never existed.
Anything resembling a dragon is a dinosaur.
Even reputable TV channels hype (mislead) historical and scientific events to attract viewers.
Any supposed evidence of dragons is exciting to children as well as adults.
Your children's imaginations are working perfectly.
2006-10-05 20:50:34
·
answer #4
·
answered by wroockee 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Im not sure about the play you are talking about, but I've been taught that whenever
Chinese dug up the remains of dinosaurs they believed them to be dragons.
Also fossilized remains are used in chinese healing and have been for thousands of years, so imagine how many fossils have been ground up and eaten.This practise still occurs today.
2006-10-06 02:03:57
·
answer #5
·
answered by rubyflats 2
·
0⤊
0⤋