Photorealism and nothing else. Scenery often feels fake af and variety is low. And if you dont give me some hard sience facts or theories i dont want to look at the same dinosaur for 20 minutes just because they look nice.

it's honestly mind blowing what vfx is capable of. really immersive and interesting. plus if you're a millennial, look forward to googling things while you go "idk that sounds fake" and finding out that way more has changed than just some dinos having feathers. like wtf new zealand is part of a submerged CONTINENT

My background is in paleontology, so theoretically this show should be right up my alley. It was a pleasant watch with my wife and I appreciated that it did not outstay its welcome. There wasn't anything particularly remarkable about Prehistoric Planet. It clearly is trying to follow in the footsteps of Walking with Dinosaurs, but that show was a technical marvel with good music and it brought many interesting species to life for the first time. Here, we see many animals that have been visualized in CGI time and time again. The show tries to show us new sides to these animals, but none of them particularly grabbed me. It just seemed fairly generic. What nudged this down to a 5/10 instead of a 6/10 for me was the science. I have no doubt that this show is well-meaning and based on good data. But as a science-minded individual, I was really here to learn about what I have missed in the last 8 years since I stopped studying paleontology. The show presents itself as a sort of nature documentary made for casual viewers rather than people interested in zoology and science. I would have liked the show to make clear distinctions between portrayals that were based on hard science; those that were inferred based on the behaviors of related animals like birds or crocodiles; and speculative "what ifs" that just let us flesh out the animals and imagine what they were MAYBE like when they were alive. The show doesn't make any such distinction, and there were multiple moments where my wife and I looked at each other and remarked, "There's no way we have evidence for that!" Each episode has a companion short that explains some of the science behind the episode, which is welcome, but it only focuses on one single factoid per episode. Some of them proved me wrong and showed we absolutely had evidence for the thing that raised my eyebrows, but I am wondering why everything in the show can't be fact-checked like this? I'm totally happy and fine with "what ifs," but I came to the show to learn and I feel like I am walking away not knowing what was fact and what was fiction. So in the end, I feel like I learned nothing!

I love dinosaurs and I take everything I can get, however this was quite boring. My wife fell asleep every episode. feels like the same few dinosaurs in every episode over and over again, those you see in the trailer are the ones you'll see in the tv series. lots of stuff was very hard to believe (like, how could anybody know how mating rituals might have worked) but there was no scientific backing or anything to substantiate the claims. it might all be true but why not tell me HOW we know that today?? The same "intro" every episode was also kind of weird. At first I thought I chose the wrong episode. Also, the "1 climate zone per episode" style was IMHO not the best choice. I would have liked an overview of dinosaurs, types, time eras and so on. More like "cosmos" with Neil deGrasse Tyson did it, "scientific".