Planet Earth II

Unfortunately Episode 2 didn't hit the heights of episode 1.

I think they overdid the 'comedy' this week as well. The fox carcass was a stroke of 'luck' wasn't it? Using a captive eagle & cam for some flying shots was a bit shady as well.

Snow leopards and the bobcat were the highlights.

10.6m watched episode 2.
 
Last edited:
I enjoyed Ep2 although I felt a few bits were flatter/less informative than the first episode (Andes section mainly) despite the rest of episode being up to the usual fantastic standards.

Still unsure about the amount of anti "making of" diary section posts too. I find it fascinating to learn how the production is carried out and I'd have like to know a little more about the remote camera setup they used to film the Snow Leopards (how did they know where to place then etc).
 
frankel1414 said:
Unfortunately Episode 2 didn't hit the heights of episode 1.

I think they overdid the 'comedy' this week as well. The fox carcass was a stroke of 'luck' wasn't it? Using a captive eagle & cam for some flying shots was a bit shady as well.

Snow leopards and the bobcat were the highlights.

10.6m watched episode 2.
Click to expand...

Who cares if they planted the fox carcass? It's not like they were choreographing the eagles fighting, was it?
 
D3K said:
So if it's ok to emulate eagle flight then no probs with cgi either?
Click to expand...

I'm glad you've reached this well-rounded and comprehensive conclusion :confused:

No one is saying they'd find CGI acceptable and I'd be one of the first to turn off if they started that nonsense. The point of contention here is that some posters are moaning about the Planet Diaries segment at the end (in the belief it cuts short the actual show) and questioning the wastefulness of some of the shots given the elaborate methods of filming.

@ ianh.. in an interview I saw with Attenborough he mentioned that they had a team of people study the behavioural patterns snow leopards and basically guesstimated where they'd likely be given the terrain. If they got no shots with the remote cameras they'd set up elsewhere. Rinse and repeat until they found a system that worked.
 
EVH said:
I'm glad you've reached this well-rounded and comprehensive conclusion :confused:

No one is saying they'd find CGI acceptable and I'd be one of the first to turn off if they started that nonsense. The point of contention here is that some posters are moaning about the Planet Diaries segment at the end (in the belief it cuts short the actual show) and questioning the wastefulness of some of the shots given the elaborate methods of filming.
Click to expand...
How is filming no animals on a paraglider an "elaborate" filming technique for nature? It's irrelevent, and a waste of time. That's my point of contention.
 
It's an "artist's impression" of what an eagle flight looks like. That's all. Sorry you had to waste two minutes watching it, 5 minutes seeing how it was done and ten minutes arguing about it on the internet.
 
Vonhelmet said:
It's an "artist's impression" of what an eagle flight looks like. That's all. Sorry you had to waste two minutes watching it, 5 minutes seeing how it was done and ten minutes arguing about it on the internet.
Click to expand...
So I can assume you are cool with CGI in a nature documentary? They are both artists impressions.
 
D3K said:
How is filming no animals on a paraglider an "elaborate" filming technique for nature? It's irrelevent, and a waste of time. That's my point of contention.
Click to expand...

I don't think you know what the word elaborate means :confused:

Most nature shows aren't using paragliders, they'd use camera traps with long lenses and perhaps the odd aerial shot from helicopter. The mere fact they've gone to such extremes to capture a unique perspective should be applauded surely?

I'm also not sure how you can call it irrelevant when the final shots were pretty unique and used in the final product. Without making it personal, you certainly seem annoyed they've done it this way, which I'm trying to understand.
 
I just enjoy it for what it is, pure educational entertainment. Some of the world's most magnificent animals in their natural and stunning environment, something future generations will see less and less sadly.:(
 
EVH said:
Without making it personal, you certainly seem annoyed they've done it this way, which I'm trying to understand.
Click to expand...

You can tell he'll never understand your point of view from the fact he thinks his opinion is the only valid one and he'll argue against anyone who disagrees. Shame really as I enjoyed the paragilder section with all the swooping around the mountains yet he'll never be able to feel that joy.
 
If I'm honest...Eagle Head Cam for Planet Earth 2 was not suitable IMO

I also agree that, while getting to a remote island to film the Penguins is interesting and I love the diary bit of the show...I do feel that that the paraglider and the trouble they took to get the shots was pretty pointless and a waste of resources...

The diary is one of the highlights for me...But POV shots of flying birds is nothing new...

We have all seen the footage of Daredevil Wing suit people flying at similar speeds through tiny caverns and openings in rock faces...

Strapping a BBC camera man in tandem and flying down a mountain side is hardly cutting edge...PLus the footage they got was pretty mediocre...

It all just seemed unnecessary to me...

The Diary element should highlight the technique and trials and tribulations of capturing nature...It should entertain ,educate and inform...

Simulations in nature docs are just not needed...A representation of what is happening is not needed...Where is the wonder in that?

TBH out of all the series the Paraglider diary has to one one of the worst...

For me I would have been interested in how they filmed the Snakes in Ep one...And how they filmed the bobkat in Ep2

This is a fantastic show nonetheless...But I want reality....not this is what it would look like from an eagles POV...Fact is it wasn't...
 
Last edited:
EVH said:
I don't think you know what the word elaborate means :confused:

Most nature shows aren't using paragliders, they'd use camera traps with long lenses and perhaps the odd aerial shot from helicopter. The mere fact they've gone to such extremes to capture a unique perspective should be applauded surely?

I'm also not sure how you can call it irrelevant when the final shots were pretty unique and used in the final product. Without making it personal, you certainly seem annoyed they've done it this way, which I'm trying to understand.
Click to expand...
Pretty sure I do. If I come across as annoyed (I'm not) then it's due to your interpretation of my defence against the backlash to my criticism. You haven't addressed that shot's relevence to the process of capturing live animals in a nature documentary. Go watch Red Bull TV if you want to see paragliding.

ianh said:
You can tell he'll never understand your point of view from the fact he thinks his opinion is the only valid one and he'll argue against anyone who disagrees. Shame really as I enjoyed the paragilder section with all the swooping around the mountains yet he'll never be able to feel that joy.
Click to expand...
As above.

easyrider gets it. I'm sure the rest of you do too. Trolls be trolls.
 
Wow. That was amazing.

Jaguar v Caiman croc, frog v wasp and the Wilson's bird-of-paradise were the highlights for me. I knew Jaguars hunted caiman crocs but I'd never seen it on TV before.

One or two negatives. Please stop with the multiple lens flares and silly cartoon sound effects.
 
Last edited:
Lost my **** at the closing scene before the diaries. 1m hectares is so much when you see how densely inhabited the place is
 
The lens flares are an unfortunate side effect of shooting into the sun with a wide open lens (gathering as much light as possible) but it does feel like JJ Abrams is directing at times :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom