BBC Hidden Kingdoms - 16th of Jan 8pm BBC1

[ChroniC]

My apologies that was a childish response from me, sorry.
I think CGI may be a bit of a blanket term. I suppose it's not quite the perfect way to explain, of course a computer would have been used to stitch the bit and bobs of real/fake stuff together, so I suppose you could say edited.

A perfect example is exactly 12mins in when the mouse is shown in a cactus field with a purple sky howling, followed by it by a old car etc. The heart says it was shot in a zoo in slow motion and then slapped together to make it look polished. If that shot is real then WOW!
Little bits like having the perfect shot for seeing the mouse in the background on a road with a rattler looking at it and the mouse in the small tsunami. It's just seemed soo perfect that it took the natural out of nature for me.
It did feel very much like a Pixar story, so well done.
Don't get me wrong it's very clever work. I suppose you can say, you can please some of the people some of the time etc.

 

[robgmun]

Our brief was PIXAR story style meets the natural world.

*Rant mode on* Haha, really? That explains a lot of what's been going on at the BBC in the last few years. I sensed that the Natural History department would be in decline due David Attenborough takes a back seat due to age. And now i see this is the beginning of the end of a once amazing department of the BBC.

The constant dumbing down and flashy showing off of camera tricks that prevail in all science and nature programmes these days just makes a mockery of the subjects they show. I lump the 'Wonders' series to this as well, some floppy haired bloke irrelevantly travels the world to show off sub-GCSE lab experiments in locations that have nothing to do with what the hell he's talking about.

I remember when i was a young teenager watching QED and Horizon (late 80's early 90's) when they were hardcore science programmes and i loved them, i understood everything they were talking about and didn't need to talked down to. The last good Science programmes was The Planets and Walking With Dinosaurs. And WWD looked 10 times more realistic then the more recent Planet Dinosaur which was 100% CGI and looked ****

Now Nature programmes are going the same way, watch my words, this is an end of an era

 

[robgmun]

A perfect example is exactly 12mins in when the mouse is shown in a cactus field with a purple sky howling, followed by it by a old car etc. The heart says it was shot in a zoo in slow motion and then slapped together to make it look polished. If that shot is real then WOW!
Little bits like having the perfect shot for seeing the mouse in the background on a road with a rattler looking at it and the mouse in the small tsunami. It's just seemed soo perfect that it took the natural out of nature for me.

My point exactly, it's almost irrelevant that it's real, when the post-processing is so overdone it makes it look completely fake and a studio shot, you've lost all the incredible hard work the camera man has done. The recent BBC Africa was a good case in point in getting it right. One shot right in the beginning in the first episode looked like something out of the Lion King! but it was undeniably real because it was untouched in post-processing and not blending in with other shots

58 seconds in, my jaw hit the floor, truly a wow moment and it didn't look artificial

 

[[TW]Taggart]

Now Nature programmes are going the same way, watch my words, this is an end of an era

The next DA series is broadcast this autumn. Just because BBC make this doesn't mean we wont do the 'normal' bluechip content. Diversifying style and content is the way forward, dramatised natural history is a great genre that is just one of many that filmmakers can use.

the sky isn't falling.

 

[robgmun]

Although it's great to hear that DA is coming back again, but at 87 there's only so long before he goes (Which would be very very sad)

Diversifying style and content is the way forward, dramatised natural history is a great genre that is just one of many that filmmakers can use.

Very sad to hear you say this. It's the way forward because that's what the BBC is pushing for, but it's doesn't make it good. And when you say filmmakers, what you really mean is the clueless suits in the boardroom that think this will appeal to mass of the common people that they've had to admit that they've had to dumb down on programming because the average IQ of the viewer has now dipped below 100

It's why dramas that are not to do with murder are all CBBC affairs even when aimed at adults (FFS Stop hiding behind the "It's a family show" rubbish). Why Comedy on the BBC has lost it edge (and again immature puerile CBBC affairs) Why science shows are at grade school level (and woe betide if they have any talking heads, quick! Show another badly made CGI shot!!!). why you pump millions into lowest common denominators like The Voice and Strictly Come Dancing because Mr and Mrs fat Chav all have ADHD and can't concentrate on anything complex for more than 10mins

It's the beginning of the end.

Even Sherlock has its problems, but it's the closest thing to great programming left

 

[Bubo]

This is all very interesting feedback.

If you are accepting feedback then one I *personally* could do without in in any of the current crop of natural history series is the "diary" bit at the end. I know some people may like to see how things are made, but for me this should be left on the red button, and the whole hour of the broadcast program should be devoted to actual presentation of the animals with proper filming, DA to camera, etc, not padded with somebodies home movie video blog. I invariably skip the end of most BBC series which have this. Don't know if there is a genuine demand for this type of stuff or whether it is a "cheaper" option to fill the time slot.

 

[[TW]Taggart]

I think CGI may be a bit of a blanket term. I suppose it's not quite the perfect way to explain, of course a computer would have been used to stitch the bit and bobs of real/fake stuff together, so I suppose you could say edited.

CGI isn't a blanket term, in my mind it means images created in a computer. We used compositing, which is different. Images captured on camera and composited together.

This video explains it all.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01q25r1

And capturing animal behaviour at this scale is very hard.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01q2c41

Because of our approach, in the 3D version you really do feel like you're 6" tall! Especially in the cinema.

 

[robgmun]

If you are accepting feedback then one I *personally* could do without in in any of the current crop of natural history series is the "diary" bit at the end. I know some people may like to see how things are made, but for me this should be left on the red button, and the whole hour of the broadcast program should be devoted to actual presentation of the animals with proper filming, DA to camera, etc, not padded with somebodies home movie video blog. I invariably skip the end of most BBC series which have this. Don't know if there is a genuine demand for this type of stuff or whether it is a "cheaper" option to fill the time slot.

I don't mind those so much, sometimes it's interesting and sometimes i just turn over. It's not disturbing the main program as it's tacked on at the end.

Going back on topic, another thing that annoyed what the F1 car sounds added to the Elephant Shrew running, that really made me cringe, nature is wonderful enough without having to resort to such tricks

 

[Bubo]

I don't mind those so much, sometimes it's interesting and sometimes i just turn over. It's not disturbing the main program as it's tacked on at the end.

Yes, but its using up time which I'd rather be spent on showing the detailed mating habits of the Siberian vampire frog or something, rather than how to get a 50kg camera up a tree. Spoiler: They use ropes.

 

[[TW]Taggart]

Very sad to hear you say this. It's the way forward because that's what the BBC is pushing for, but it's doesn't make it good.

I dont want you to turn this thread into a BBC bash fest, please. But Ill ask you this... If anyone other than the BBC had made this series would you have the same issues?

 

[[TW]Taggart]

Going back on topic, another thing that annoyed what the F1 car sounds added to the Elephant Shrew running, that really made me cringe, nature is wonderful enough without having to resort to such tricks

Clearly you're not our target audience. BBC4 is < that way!

 

[[TW]Taggart]

The recent BBC Africa was a good case in point in getting it right.

I'm glad you enjoyed one of my previous!

 

[robgmun]

I dont want you to turn this thread into a BBC bash fest, please. But Ill ask you this... If anyone other than the BBC had made this series would you have the same issues?

Of course! National Geographic make some god awful programmes too and hardly touch wildlife anymore. They overdub DA narration when shown in america too and it's so bad it's almost a crime! It's a shame that the BBC is slowly following NG down the same path of tackiness and bad flashy CGI and compositing

 

[robgmun]

Clearly you're not our target audience. BBC4 is < that way!

So you're happy with the rot setting into the BBC? Why do we have to allow this constant dumbing down of TV, the result of dumbing down is a dumb audience because nothing will challenge the brain, you might as well make TV for vegetables.

I'm glad you enjoyed one of my previous!

Lets be clear here, i'm not making a direct attack on you or your work, you are clearly talented. It's down to the brief you get and if you try to do something different (better) then you'll be out of a job. My attack is what briefs you're getting

 

[[TW]Taggart]

So you're happy with the rot setting into the BBC? Why do we have to allow this constant dumbing down of TV, the result of dumbing down is a dumb audience because nothing will challenge the brain, you might as well make TV for vegetables.

All of this, of course, is your opinion. Its important to remember that BBC1 is a mainstream channel and thats what its target is. BBC2 and 4 have more highbrow content like http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01k73zy which was applauded for its science content.

 

[covenantuk]

Have to agree with some of the sentiment here.

The natural/scientific world is amazing enough - the hubris of some blue sky execs thinking that they can improve it by making it look like a Pixar movie is incredible. Why the need to treat the audience as brain dead and just there to be entertained with "ooh look pretty"?

My pet peeve is the often far-too-intrusive music added for "dramatic effect" - it's seems to have lost any attempt at subtlety over the years.

 

[Mr Jones]

I'm not sure I what you mean. All natural history is edited... other wise it would be an hour program of not a lot happening.

Excuse my lack of editing lingo.

Let me put in in terms of how I saw it. I am watching a scene with the elephant mouse, panning from our POV down to the mouse POV. The difference between the 2 composition stood out like a sore thumb.

DA Planet Earth(?) was on Saturday morning, I remember watching last week's where the camera simply panning from telescopic view to wide angle of the Grand Canyon and that, as simple in concept as it was back in those days, adds loads to the wow effect.

This however, didn't give that when they went from big animal view to small animal's.

The repeating scene of the same mouse running from left to right, with added sound effects not naturally found in that scene feels like someone banging the table whilst I'm watching something intriguing.

The composite scene when the rattle snake was launching across the left to right, with an obviously different shot mouse leaping, again, I understand the concept that it's a story telling which focues on the character, but that was just too much 'editing'. It doesn't feel seemless as many of the better shows, such as those mentioned before, Africa. It's spectacular. Even if we don't compare with such level of work, the recent "Wild Brazil" was captivating and has a level of wow factor, without composite shots (or I didn't notice because it was that seamless).

Out of the whole show, I noticed the mouse went from male (2 obvious balls) to female (no balls) whilst trying to tell the story that it's the same endearing mouse.

I was actually more interested in the last 5 mins diary that the whilse 50 odd minute show. That was when I realise that elephant mouse is a hard shot to get, no doubt, but the 'added effect' to the production make it poorer than usual for me from the BBC.

Felt like someone first discovered Photoshop and tried every effect available to spruce up an image, which eventually distracted viewer from the original subject, which is the animal.

I dont want you to turn this thread into a BBC bash fest, please. But Ill ask you this... If anyone other than the BBC had made this series would you have the same issues?

And to answer this: I won't have the same issue if this was done on Channel 4 or ITV. I have however, come to a certain level of expectation of BBC Animal Documentary to be head and shoulders above the competition. Factual, seamless editing, even if it's 2 entirely different elephant herd.

I will however continue watching it to see if it gets any better and hope the BBC will move away from this approach. And just to clarify, these are of my opinion.

 

[[TW]Taggart]

Have to agree with some of the sentiment here.

The natural/scientific world is amazing enough - the hubris of some blue sky execs thinking that they can improve it by making it look like a Pixar movie is incredible. Why the need to treat the audience as brain dead and just there to be entertained with "ooh look pretty"?

My pet peeve is the often far-too-intrusive music added for "dramatic effect" - it's seems to have lost any attempt at subtlety over the years.

its not like this style of film is going to be the replacement for bluechip/DA...We are dramatised natural history, It's just another way of telling compelling true to life stories. Its not like we have thrown lemmings off a cliff and told you its real.

I suppose gone are the days where innovation and trying something new were applauded...

 

[robgmun]

All we want is Natural History programmes to be Natural...go figure

 

[[TW]Taggart]

And to answer this: I won't have the same issue if this was done on Channel 4 or ITV. I have however, come to a certain level of expectation of BBC Animal Documentary to be head and shoulders above the competition. Factual, seamless editing, even if it's 2 entirely different elephant herd.

I will however continue watching it to see if it gets any better and hope the BBC will move away from this approach.

We are not a documentary. And this is where I think the issue lies, People don't know what Hidden Kingdoms is.

Watch this week and then ask yourself: