Loving the thought that people may be reading it and having not yet seen the episode and reading about "David" getting mauled by chimps and RIP and perhaps frantically checking their phones for news about Mr Attenborough.
Nature dictates that the strongest will at some time get defeated. Sometimes you see a special leader like David who lasts longer than he should. But nature catches up with them all. Brutal, but that is the life of chimps in the wild. What we should be more bothered about is how humans are impacting on these wonderful creatures.
Does no one else find this sort of thing a bit contrived? Film some wild animals and add some of your own commentary that fits the pictures...
I have not watched it, so please feel free to put me right, but isn't adding commentary to fit the pictures exactly what you would expect?
I mean, if you are watching a documentary about the life of chimpanzees, would you expect the voice over to say: " So the introduction of the Piggly Wiggly in 1917 was about to change the face of shopping forever..."?
Or do you expect the programme to be a live broadcast lasting two years, with old Atters being poked awake with a stick every time there's some action for him to comment on?
Or when you say "...add some of your own commentary...", are you suggesting that the apes themselves give us a rundown of what they are up to instead?
The mother leaving its baby and then it rolling down the hill done me. Brutal.
Screaming at the TV during that one so close but so far It was nice to see they dug a path for them afterwards so they could get out of the trench in the "How it was filmed" bit.
The mother leaving its baby and then it rolling down the hill done me. Brutal.
Screaming at the TV during that one so close but so far It was nice to see they dug a path for them afterwards so they could get out of the trench in the "How it was filmed" bit.
This has left me with a quandary. Part of me agrees that wildlife filming should be done with no interference at all, whatever the outcome. Otherwise it is not the real deal. If those people had not been there then nature would have taken its true course. In the first one when David the Chimp got a good hiding, they could have got him to a vets and sorted him out, but they chose not to, instead leaving it to nature, Ok he survived but they weren't to know that. The other part of me says get down there and get those penguins out of the trench, but thats because I dont wanna see an animal hurt/die.
That said and done, I guess I'm on the side of letting nature take its course, as tough as it may be. BUT, what if I was there what would I do, could I carry on filming while they died? Shit......I dunno.... bollocks!
What I do know is that the BBC and particularly Attenborough have no peers when it come to this stuff, they are in a league of their own.
I think digging the shallow ramp was the correct call, it's not like they airlifted the penguins out or gave them treatment, and the 30 or so penguins in the ravine wouldn't change the course of the whole population of emperor penguins
The mother leaving its baby and then it rolling down the hill done me. Brutal.
Screaming at the TV during that one so close but so far It was nice to see they dug a path for them afterwards so they could get out of the trench in the "How it was filmed" bit.
This has left me with a quandary. Part of me agrees that wildlife filming should be done with no interference at all, whatever the outcome. Otherwise it is not the real deal. If those people had not been there then nature would have taken its true course. In the first one when David the Chimp got a good hiding, they could have got him to a vets and sorted him out, but they chose not to, instead leaving it to nature, Ok he survived but they weren't to know that. The other part of me says get down there and get those penguins out of the trench, but thats because I dont wanna see an animal hurt/die.
That said and done, I guess I'm on the side of letting nature take its course, as tough as it may be. BUT, what if I was there what would I do, could I carry on filming while they died? Shit......I dunno.... bollocks!
What I do know is that the BBC and particularly Attenborough have no peers when it come to this stuff, they are in a league of their own.
Yeah, it must be very difficult for the filmmakers in situations like that, but I think with David it was a bit different. He had been injured in a battle for leadership of the group, if he had been healed up by the filmmakers or a vet, and then returned, you are making very significant changes to the outcome of that leadership battle, which is huge for their society/group/future. With the penguins, the stupid bastards had fallen in a hole they couldn't get out of, digging a trench helps them but they weren't even sure if it would work, and like Sam says won't make a significant impact on the future of the group.
Either way huge respect for anyone who does this kind of work, the personal strain it must cause as well as the determination and focus it must take to live in conditions like this for months on end (with no guarantee of a successful shoot in a lot of instances) is incredible.
Attenborough has spoken in the past of not stepping in to help animals on the brink of death, and speaking at the launch of the series, he stated that “tragedy is a part of life,” and that meddling in that will only see matters worsen, or delay the same outcome.
I think in that one specific case its different to any other. As already mentioned, saving those penguins wouldn't have any impact on any other penguins in the group. Also it was a freak of nature that that storm happened to knock the penguins down into the canyon making it impossible for them to get out.
thought last night's one wasn't as good as the chimpanzee one, however the photography was amazing.
Agreed, think the Penguin story is a little done tbh. They get knocked up, one goes and fishes, one stays and starves and huddles, they come back and sometimes a penguin gets squished.
That said the penguin story on Blue Planet (or something similar) a couple of years ago was amazing. When they were on the small volcanic spit of land in middle of the Atlantic ocean in their millions and had to jump out of the water to reach the shore and were coming on shore all bloodied up. That was amazing. The story they re-told yesterday I had seen a couple of times before I felt.
Comments
I mean, if you are watching a documentary about the life of chimpanzees, would you expect the voice over to say: " So the introduction of the Piggly Wiggly in 1917 was about to change the face of shopping forever..."?
Or do you expect the programme to be a live broadcast lasting two years, with old Atters being poked awake with a stick every time there's some action for him to comment on?
Or when you say "...add some of your own commentary...", are you suggesting that the apes themselves give us a rundown of what they are up to instead?
When you consider they have had to condense a 2 year shoot into a 50 minute piece I think that they did an incredible job.
Was shocked to hear just how few chimpanzees are left in the wild though.
Amazing tv though......
Part of me agrees that wildlife filming should be done with no interference at all, whatever the outcome. Otherwise it is not the real deal. If those people had not been there then nature would have taken its true course.
In the first one when David the Chimp got a good hiding, they could have got him to a vets and sorted him out, but they chose not to, instead leaving it to nature, Ok he survived but they weren't to know that.
The other part of me says get down there and get those penguins out of the trench, but thats because I dont wanna see an animal hurt/die.
That said and done, I guess I'm on the side of letting nature take its course, as tough as it may be. BUT, what if I was there what would I do, could I carry on filming while they died? Shit......I dunno.... bollocks!
What I do know is that the BBC and particularly Attenborough have no peers when it come to this stuff, they are in a league of their own.
Either way huge respect for anyone who does this kind of work, the personal strain it must cause as well as the determination and focus it must take to live in conditions like this for months on end (with no guarantee of a successful shoot in a lot of instances) is incredible.
Said it broke the number 1 rule of wildlife filming and that tragedy is part of the world.
I can't imagine how hard it would be to sit back and watch them all stuck there though.
Attenborough has spoken in the past of not stepping in to help animals on the brink of death, and speaking at the launch of the series, he stated that “tragedy is a part of life,” and that meddling in that will only see matters worsen, or delay the same outcome.
Also it was a freak of nature that that storm happened to knock the penguins down into the canyon making it impossible for them to get out.
That said the penguin story on Blue Planet (or something similar) a couple of years ago was amazing. When they were on the small volcanic spit of land in middle of the Atlantic ocean in their millions and had to jump out of the water to reach the shore and were coming on shore all bloodied up. That was amazing. The story they re-told yesterday I had seen a couple of times before I felt.
These programmes are why I've spent so much money on a television that is more lifelike than life, the camera work is beautiful