Reptile & Amphibian Forums

Dear all,

There's a new show starting on Discovery Channel this Sunday 21 March called "Animal Face-Off" (9pm ET/PT).

The premise is to take two predators, two animal experts and a team of engineers to create mechanical versions of each animal - and then determine which one has more chance of winning in a fight.

Of course, the real premise is to teach people how well suited each animal is as a predator, but it will also provide answers to age-old questions such as whether a lion or a crocodile would win in a fight.

The first episode on Sunday pits the Australian Saltwater Crocodile against the Great White Shark (or White Pointer). I'm defending the saltie, so wish me luck. Actually, I know who the winner is already, but let me know if you agree or disagree with the outcome.

Later episodes with crocs include Nile Crocodile vs African Lion, and American Alligator vs. Black Bear. Finally, the other reptile is a Green Anaconda vs. Jaguar. I have to defend them all.

Regardless of which animal wins, the mechanical Saltwater Croc wins the prize for the most impressive robotic creation (see photo below).

Cheers,

Adam Britton

http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/animalfaceoff

The image didn't work, for some reason.

I'll try again below, otherwise you can see it at:

http://crocodilian.com/faceoff-croc1.jpg

Whom was that sent back in time to kill? Sarah Crocodile?
-----
Eryx - All the fun of a boa in a convenient pocket size!

I am sorry but I see no redeeming scientific or social value to staging such fights. When I have seen people post questions like this on this forum I have said to myself what a stupid question I hope no one answers. I see nothing about an artificial fight between predators that would be intructive relative to behavior between predator and prey. This is too similar to another "croc hunter" who uses scientific and conservation justifications to promote sensational activities because it makes good TV. I hope this is not a signal that one of the best and most respective croc biologist is starting down the same path. Fame is a cruel mistress.

Ouch. Ok, first you should watch the program before jumping to any conclusions. Criticism is a refined concept that requires information that you clearly lack.

The whole point of natural history shows is to interest viewers in concepts, and this show attempts to do so by trying to construct artificial devices that can be used as examples of how different species use their adaptations to survive. Instead of a talking head or a jumping clown telling us that crocs can bite hard, here we have a modelled skull that crushes hard objects that emulate bone. It's interesting to watch.

Like it or not, traditional natural history shows with David Attenborough teaching us of the virtues of animals are disappearing fast. Only last week I heard that Wildlife on One, one of the BBC's premier natural history shows for over 30 years, is going to be cancelled. Why? Because not enough people are watching them. Is this sad? Yes, it is. So how do you bring an audience back to wildlife? Using mechanical animals? Who knows, but it's worth a try.

There's been some bizarre criticism in the media of this show, that it glorifies animal suffering and promotes cruelty. Perhaps on planet Urbanization. Animals do fight in the wild, and there are specific reasons why (and why they often try to avoid such conflict). People have always been interested in this, so what's wrong with trying to use technology (robotics and computer graphics) to interest the general public (who are fast losing touch with wildlife) in these creatures? One school of thought is to jump on their back and shout "crickey!". This show says "How can we make science and behaviour interesting to a general audience?" Good luck to them.

I took part in this program because I saw through the nonsense and appreciated the value of getting people interested in the animals, not the personalities who work with them. It is not perfect (especially the CGI fights, which are contrived and limited in equal measure) but it's a bold approach.

Best wishes,

Adam

>>I am sorry but I see no redeeming scientific or social value to staging such fights. When I have seen people post questions like this on this forum I have said to myself what a stupid question I hope no one answers. I see nothing about an artificial fight between predators that would be intructive relative to behavior between predator and prey. This is too similar to another "croc hunter" who uses scientific and conservation justifications to promote sensational activities because it makes good TV. I hope this is not a signal that one of the best and most respective croc biologist is starting down the same path. Fame is a cruel mistress.

Greetings:

This show (from the previews) looks to be quite entertaining and fun, we may even learn some mechanical engineering tips/techniques with a zoological twist.

Adam I will tape this show tomorrow for you and later burn it to a DVD,

Truly,
Paul Bodnar

The croc completely had it in the bag and then what...I guess the croc was so stoned that when he was death rolling he forgot what he was doing and they both sank. If you can't tell, the ending made me pretty mad. End result, you and the croc totally got played.
-----
Eryx - All the fun of a boa in a convenient pocket size!

Yeah, I felt that way too, but only because the croc model did a better job at being a croc than the shark one did at being a shark. Unfortunately they didn't really show the croc's tank test, because it was a bit gory! The croc had the upper "mechanical" hand without doubt.

However, I honestly wouldn't expect a real croc to win against a real white shark (weighing 3 times as much!) in open water like that - Dan and I both agreed it was a no contest fight. The CGI fight should have lasted about 5 seconds, but we had to help make a vaguely credible sequence that lasted for over a minute. We only partially succeeded, and for me the CGI "fight" was the weakest element of the program. Had the croc been able to rip the pectoral fin off like that, the shark would be spiralling down to the sea bed! And the roll-over "trance" was far from realistic. I want to give everyone who thinks you can hypnotise a croc by rolling it onto its back a 2 metre saltie and tell them to go for it!

When you work on these shows, you have to learn to grit your teeth a lot. But it got some interesting points across, for which I'm glad.

The next croc face-off (airs in a few weeks) is Nile croc versus African lion, which is actually a much more realistic encounter.

Adam

We understand . And I thought the croc would lose in the open ocean too, it just wouldn't play out like the CGI put it. Maybe the croc will still win Flying Shark vs. Flying Crocodile week on Cartoon Network. That will be some vindication.
-----
Eryx - All the fun of a boa in a convenient pocket size!