Talk:The Future Is Wild

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Screens?[edit]

Could we have some screenshots from the programme? --Shashank Shekhar 14:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great idea, there's plenty of pictures on the web! Only I don't know how to put them on...61.230.78.58 02:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble lies with licensing issues. I did not add them as the ones I saw were not open. --Shashank Shekhar 08:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whadya mean not open? 61.230.78.158 09:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not Open as in not in public domain. They had copyright notices at the bottom, and I was unsure about that. --Shashank Shekhar 12:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh...I know a fantastic site about The Future Is Wild! It has the pictures of every animal in the series! But it's all Flash... 211.72.108.2 00:52, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it is not copyrighted, or if the author can be contacted to release them, then we can use them. Print-Screen can be always used to pick images from Flash, but copyvios must be avoided. I don't think we should have a problem since this is not unfair use according to the Wikipedia note for trademark or copyrighted images:

It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of logos 

   * to illustrate the organization, item, or event in question
   * on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation,

qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. Shashank Shekhar 16:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, here's the site: The Future Is Wild. Click on "The Concept", then "Future Creatures", then click on the name of an enviroment to find pictures of the animals. click on the animals for the full picture. 61.230.78.244 06:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notable enough to have all these sub-articles?[edit]

This was a one-shot program, right? Is the show notable enough to need 20 or 30-odd individual articles on each hypothetical species? ekedolphin 23:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the specie articles are good... We're only lacking:

  • Desert Rattleback
  • False Spitfire Bird
  • Spitfire Bird
  • Roachcutter
  • Gloomworm
  • Ocean Flish
  • Forest Flish
Also, I'd like to see more episode pages.
61.230.78.58 02:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the Desert Rattleback can be covered in the main Rattleback article, and it's also better to describe both Flishes in one single article. Jerkov 14:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As for notability, I do have a bad experience concerning this, with The World of Kong. I made seperate articles for the creatures described in this book, but they were deleted for not being notable enough. I'm not sure whether this also applies to the creatures from The Future is Wild, but personally I don't agree with this policy. Not when you can make full-fledged individual articles (like the ones of the Half Life enemies). Jerkov 15:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they're different species. It's like putting all, say, anteaters in a single article but not making separate articles for the different species. Dora Nichov 05:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, but you must consider that the creatures from The Future is Wild are not equal to real life animals in terms of notability. I think they do deserve seperate articles, but to also describe the different species of Flish and Rattleback seperately would be pushing things. There's far less information available on them than there is on real life species; while there's always a lot of research on real life animals, you're limited to the information given by the TV show in the case of Future's creatures. And since there are hardly any differences between Ocean and Forest Flish besides their habitat the info on their pages would probably become virtually identical, anyway. Therefore it's better to just make one Flish article. Jerkov 11:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I'll still list them, but I'll link both the Flish article. Dora Nichov 01:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Episodes complete :-D Michaelritchie200 21:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great news! I created new pages for some creatures from The Future is Wild. I made :

AnimalsrcoolAM7 18:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)animalsrcoolAM7AnimalsrcoolAM7 18:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)Feb.14 2007[reply]

Similar Program[edit]

Does anyone remember a similar program, featuring penguins evolving into whale-like creatures and bats becoming terrestrial hunters? I've been looking for it everywhere.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.162.49.186 (talk) 20:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are referring to the Deathgleaner (the bat) and the Gannetwhale (the penguin). Joey80 05:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think he's talking about the After Man series ( if there ever was one).BOB 18:59 28 February 2007 Since the work of Dougal Dixon (Afterman) was the basis for this series, we can reasonably conclude that this, essencially, is the filmed version of Afterman and, in fact, the Gannets and Deathgleaners are the creatures the original poster was referring to.Qabala 20:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, the creatures in "The Future is Wild" are different than his work in "After Man." There were indeed penguin-whales and bipedal bat predators in the After Man book, and an author picture in later work shows Dixon making a model of one of the bats. Unclear what the model was used for....simple reference for illustration, perhaps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.206.48.217 (talk) 18:15, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After Man takes place in a different time period than this, so no, it's not the filmed version. In fact, the two share precisely 0 animals in common. Anyways, he's probably thinking of the Night Stalker and Vortex from After Man. The Gannetwhale is descended from the gannet, not the penguin, and the Deathgleaner isn't terrestrial.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.235.185.34 (talk) 14:02, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nonfictional?[edit]

Call this a stupid question if you will, but does this article truly belong in Category:Nonfiction television series? It is meticulously researched and very cleverly put together, but that does not make it any less ficticious. — Mütze 22:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm... What does this have to do with anything? Dora Nichov 11:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant to say: ”Call this a stupid question if you will, but does this article truly belong in Category:Nonfiction television series?“ Don't worry, I did not want to challenge its place in wikipedia. :-) — Mütze 13:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, good. I suppose it's nonfiction if you look at it one way, but then, it's fiction when you look at it another way... Dora Nichov 01:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I would welcome a duscussion. :-) I think it's fiction. That doesn't demote its value or decrease its validity, but everybody in the show tells you that they are merely presenting their best guesses, and that it might just as easily turn out to be completely different. If you simply predict tectonic movements (which you can extrpolyte fairly simply), you are doing nonfiction and education, but invention animals that might evolve there is sure immensely interesting and entertaining but because they are so very specific predictions so very far in the future (= very unlikely in that specific form), you have something that is just as much science fiction as, say 2001:A space Odyssey. The immense involvement of renouned scientist makes it hard to call it "fiction" and be done with it, but in my opinion the show shows, how many of the scientist involved were mostly having great fun working on the project and extrapolation/inventing amazing creatures. I do not think it is an insult. — Mütze 02:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

predictions based on a scientific theory that hasn't even been fully proven... sounds like fuction to me...--64.217.19.125 05:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It has nothing todo with fiction, it is protoscience, and pretty important in that. The only "fictional thing" is the assumption that humans die out which is rather extremely unlikely, hence all the more important to investigate such scenarios. But the categorization in non-fictional television is certainly over the top. But it in documentary or "science". I don`t see any possibility that would be of any significance for humans to no longer be the dominant species.Slicky 09:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Dora Nichov 12:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This show is basically science fiction. It's based upon scientific principles, but the storylines, the future climates, and the animals are ALL fictional. Step into a time machine & would you find Poggles or Giant 240,000 turtles? Of course not. Are you going to find a tropical planet? No. Because nobody knows what the future will hold. It's fiction. Like an Isaac Asimov or Robert Heinlein novel, except about animals instead of people. - Theaveng 23:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[No, it's science fiction.]—Preceding unsigned comment added by Theaveng (talk • contribs) 23:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is fiction. It is not real. Look up the definition if you're not sure. It offers a good basis for the theory, but that's all. --MartinezMD (talk) 08:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

000000[edit]

Couldn't we write 5 million, 10 million, etc, instead of 5000000? That's somewhat awkward.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe Schmedley (talk • contribs) 00:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it's DONE. Next time, be bold and do it yourself. (not trying to make that sound like an insult) --Wikiwow 21:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese theme park[edit]

Article says that for a time in 2005, there was a Japanese theme park based on the premise. I'd love to hear more about that, perhaps it even warrants its own article. Sadly, the claim is not sourced. Trappleton 09:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Walking with...[edit]

Is there some relation of this series with Walking with Dinosaurs, Walling with Beasts and the like? I find the narrative and visual styles similar. --Error 21:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. Dora Nichov 05:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dougal Dixon[edit]

Dougal Dixon is listed in his page as co-autor of the book "The Future is Wild" (2003) - with John Adams. Should he be listed here? --Error 22:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. General Eisenhower • (at war or at peace) (at war here (screams in the background)) 22:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Terabyte or Terrabyte?[edit]

It is indeed "Terabyte" despite what some of us, including myself, have thought previously. One can go to http://www.thefutureiswild.com/flash/index.html and look at the creatures for confirmation. It is under 200 million years in the future in the central desert. So, in order to prevent future disagreement, I decided to end this debate once and for all by providing the link here. --Marsbound2024 16:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Finally someone has it right! Dora Nichov 08:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification?[edit]

One line in the section DVD product information is "Magna Pacific, the company contracted to market the Future is Wild series to Australasia, originally planned to release the 3-DVD set in May." Could someone clarify whether 2006 or 2007 is meant? Based on context, I am assuming 2006. samwaltz 09:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've started the new 2007 series page —Preceding unsigned comment added by Futurewildfan (talk • contribs) 19:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

Don'this need to cite like normal article. Well, this one is TV show.--Freewayguy Msg USC 01:35, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there going to be another season?[edit]

On the episode list for the 2007 series it says "Season One" does anyone know for sure there will be other seasons? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Futurewildfan (talk • contribs) 05:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

100 million year time[edit]

The world is very hot, octopuses have come onto land, and there are enormous tortoises. Much of the land is flooded by shallow seas. The surrounding land has become brackish swamps. Antarctica has drifted towards the tropics, and once again it is covered with trees, as it was 300 million years before. Is this time line wrong. Antarctica move to south pole 360 million years ago, the article said 300 million years ago it suppose to be 500 million years ago. Is it a mistake, or is this just me? And also the article said for Antartica to be back at equator by 100 million year-time, if Antartica move north it won't be that far north by 100 million year, at most it will be where Australia is now.--209.129.85.4 (talk) 20:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first is a mistake, the second is from the show, not a wikipedia prediction — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.145.88.78 (talk) 11:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Poggle clarification please[edit]

We have "Poggle, the last mammal, living inside mountains". Does this mean (a) it's the last mammal to live inside mountains (but there are other mammals), or (b) it's the last mammal of all, and it lives inside mountains? --Stfg (talk) 17:56, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your latter suggestion is the correct. The real question is why the article says the Poggle is the last land-living mammal. According to the show, the Poggle is the last mammal of all, land or sea. --64.201.34.202 (talk) 18:49, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John->Joanna Adams[edit]

According to Tetrapod Zoology [1] John Adams apparently changed his name to Joanna Adams, not sure if this is real. 75.156.69.71 (talk) 23:44, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can a speculative work be called a documentary?[edit]

Wikipedia's own definition of a documentary film states, "A documentary film is a nonfictional motion picture intended to document some aspect of reality, primarily for the purposes of instruction, education, or maintaining a historical record." Since TFiW is speculation, would it be more accurate to be a film of speculation, presented in the format of a documentary film? Best regardsTheBaron0530 (talk) 18:16, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 26 April 2022[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved per request. Favonian (talk) 15:00, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Future is Wild → The Future Is Wild – Per MOS:TITLECAPS. The word "is" is a verb and should therefore be capitalized. I have no idea why the article currently uses otherwise. G6 contested due to the article itself inexplicably using lower-case; pinging @Liz: who contested the G6. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:31, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Always capitalized: When using title case, the following words should be capitalized:
  • Every verb, including forms of to be (Be, Am, Is, Are, Being, Was, Were, Been) (emphasis mine)
For example, Dick Johnson Is Dead. Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:30, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Always" not actually "Always", per guideline: "...best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply". References and sources used on the page lowercase this title. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:53, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
First, the fancy title for this is "The FUTURE is WILD". Reference #3 here uses it, and that should be discounted. Ref #4, Los Angeles Times, here writes The Future Is Wild. Variety here writes mainly The Future Is Wild. The Hollywood Reporter writes it that way in a couple of articles. Same with Screen Daily across up to seven results. Basically, reliable sources are not exclusively writing The Future is Wild, so we should use house style here. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:38, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This is a title formatting issue, and our formatting rules say it should be capitalized. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:38, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nomination, Erik and Rreagan007. In the orthographic wild, there is inconsistency, but Wikipedia is consistent. A lengthy discussion on this general topic was held in 2013 at Talk:A Boy Was Born#Requested move. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 17:19, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reception section?[edit]

Shouldn't there be a reception section or something for the actual TV series? With reliable sources saying what critics and scientists from those said sources actually say about it, how they feel about it? What they think about the show's animals from an opposing side? 2600:1700:9770:6760:DC7D:8FBB:CED8:ABCF (talk) 17:07, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Future_Is_Wild&oldid=1210494183"