The tricks behind nature documentaries
washingtonpost.com
The tricks behind nature documentaries
1–10 of 35 posts
Re: The tricks behind nature documentaries
#2"Survivorman" is much more tame than "Man vs Wild", but I doubt "Survivorman" would actually get more rating.
Who would want to watch a guy starve half of the time and subsists himself on the small flora and fauna he can catch? Nobody. But it's much more realistic and I think much more informative.
Re: The tricks behind nature documentaries
#3"Survivorman" is much more tame than "Man vs Wild", but I doubt "Survivorman" would actually get more rating. Who would want to watch a guy starve half of the time and subsists himself on the small flora and fauna he can catch? Nobody. But it's much more realistic and I think much more informative.
Me, which is why I read about it. Text is a better format for that kind of material.
Re: The tricks behind nature documentaries
#4Image is always manipulated one way or another, willingly or inadvertently, for the form or to change its meaning. Nothing really that new there. Like the sound of the bear paw ion the water example: did anyone really think they had a mike pole right above the beast? Did I miss something?
Re: The tricks behind nature documentaries
#5I always like to imagine "Planet Earth" is free of most of this stuff, and I hope I won't be proven otherwise.
Re: The tricks behind nature documentaries
#6If this surprises you, I've got a fantastic investment opportunity I'd love to discuss...
Re: The tricks behind nature documentaries
#7This is sad. What made environmental programs worse for me is the human interaction (and human interest) stories that they try to create. Usually it is a person catching or wrestling with a wild animal (they usually try to justify this for some obscure reason instead of admitting it is for television).
Probably the best example of this is Steve Irwin's shows.
But this probably just mirrors what people want. Everything should be instant gratification - like getting drive through hamburgers.
I personally think that if they set up nice highres cameras at a watering hole (with nice internet connection) it would be better. You would then be able to watch the water hole all day and it would be cheap.
Imagine laying on a couch on a Saturday, reading a book while eying the watering hole in HD on your television/PC...
Re: The tricks behind nature documentaries
#8I always like to imagine "Planet Earth" is free of most of this stuff, and I hope I won't be proven otherwise.
I've always assumed that the sound effects from their underwater shots were studio effects.
Re: The tricks behind nature documentaries
#9I think the real point of the story is the push towards animals as entertainment rather than the fact that some hard to get footage is staged (though the two points are mixed together). The Economist had a good article on just how profitable wildlife show are, http://www.economist.com/node/16793496?story_id=16793496&.... Consequently it is easy to see why content creators are keen to reduce costs (cut corners ?) and boost ratings.
Re: The tricks behind nature documentaries
#10I always like to imagine "Planet Earth" is free of most of this stuff, and I hope I won't be proven otherwise.
One of the great things about the BBC natural history unit's programmes is that on the DVDs/Blu-Rays/Broadcasts they tend to show additional footage of how certain scenes were captured. They do tend to have the whole 6 weeks out in the middle of nowhere waiting for the perfect shot stuff going on, but of course that tends to be for one scene.
The other thing I've noticed the BBC do is they reuse footage from one documentary in another, which I guess is fair enough if it's good footage. I'd also be surprised if there wasn't some clever editing with audio to get the results.