Planet Earth Live - What is the point?
16/05/2012 09:27:31
Image copyright BBC - Photographer Andrew Hayes-Watkins
Bits of the Planet, screened all over the Earth, Occasionally LiveBBC is considered the best in the world at making wildlife programmes, and rightly so. They have set the standard with pioneering techniques, the best presenters and innovation. Planet Earth Live has none of these qualities, and there appears to be little live about it either.
Been done before
Almost all the wildlife has been covered in a similar fashion before. Big cat diaries, Elephant diaries, Big bear week, Meerkat manor, Last Chance To See - The Great Grey Whale - All great programmes that were eventually taken off the TV due to falling viewing figures.
Planet Earth - Hardly
Hardly global coverage for this ‘global' programme. With just 9 locations (3 in Africa, 3 in North America, 1 each in Peru, Sri Lanka & The Arctic) and the key species being studied all being mammals, it covers a very narrow spectrum of species and locations. Planet seems to mean it is broadcast all over the world, rather than filmed.
Presenters
The choice of presenters has created much debate too. We question why none of the BBC's range of outstanding wildlife presenters were chosen? Perhaps the Beeb wanted to create more mass appeal by bringing (dumbing down?) more mainstream presenters, or perhaps none of the wildlife presenters wanted the job?
Springwatch and Autumnwatch
Springwatch and Autumnwatch have been very popular, and surprised some people with their popularity. Trying to create that same format on a global (haha) scale was always going to be difficult. Some of the things that we like about the ‘Watches' are their mundaneness. It is filmed in gardens, buildings and woods, and features creatures that we can all relate to, and is presented by presenters who know their stuff, mostly. ‘Watches' also cover all the wildlife, and its little quirks. Birds, mammals, insects and even the occasional plant, mostly live.
Do foxes ever enter people's houses? Most certainly. This fox was found on the sofa of wildlife photographer Paul Goldstein in South London. Appears to be reading BBC Wildlife magazine - About foxes.
So after watching PEL I thought I would give Channel 4's ‘Foxes live' for 5 minutes. To my surprise, I enjoyed it far more than ‘
Bits of the Planet, screened all over the Earth, Occasionally Live'. Some excellent innovation here - Post mortems on 14 foxes, 7 urban and 7 rural, to find out what they eat. Live polls as to whether people like foxes or not, whether they go in people's houses, and even whether they really do attack people - All with some surprising results - Urban foxes eat KFC, rural foxes eat worms, the odd chicken and a lot of fruit; Apparently some of us like foxes, others don't; They do go into some people's homes, and yes, apparently they do very very occasionally have a nip. But are nowhere near as dangerous as domestic dogs, by a vast margin.
Ultimate global wildlife drama - Or just the last?
BBC's strapline for Planet Earth Live is "Join us for the ultimate global wildlife drama. Real animals. Real lives. In real time." Look ‘ultimate' up in the dictionary - it means last. Frankly, I am not surprised.
Comment on the location and tell us what you saw there
The quality of wildlife documentary presenters has been going downhill for years.
The reason people like David Attenbourgh have been watched and liked for years, is they keep the programmes focus on the place or the wildlife they are documenting, and dont draw attention to themselves.
Modern presenters are'nt content with sitting on a riverbank with salmon jumping in the background whilst they tell you of all the wonderfull things relating to salmon. They have to get in the water and the harp on about how daring they are and how one slip will result in them plumeting to their death, all the time displaying an annoying over exitment which can never be felt by the people watching from their sofa at home no matter how good the filming.
And when you see the likes of Chris Packham on Spring Watch having his ego carressed by his co-presenters who seem to view him as the font of all knowledge, whilst he picks holes in peoples photographs that they've gone to the trouble of sending in. It all looks a bit sad!
To be honest, I'm glad of the internet. At least we can learn about our amazing planet without having to put up with these awfull programmes
Posted by: michael johnson | 15 Jul 2012 13:41:12
I didn't really engage with the programme much!
The trouble is that people enjoy watching wildlife at home or abroad and this has been taken advantage of by more magazine type programme schedules. The issues of animal welfare whether the proposed badger cull against scientific evidence and public opinion (barely mentioning biosecurity and low immune systems of dairy cows through exhaustion, also could foxhunting be spreading the disease?) or the lifting of the tusk ban, exploitation of elephants in Thailand tourism are rarely addressed.
Posted by: Victoria | 11 Jun 2012 21:41:49
I agree with the above comments. I watched the first broadcast and cringed. The presenters were awful.......they lacked knowledge of their subjects and were stilted and awkward on camera. But the main criticism I have is: what was the point of having a live programme when most of the broadcast material had been pre-recorded? Having Richard Hammond broadcast live from Africa in the pitch black with nothing live to report apart from thermal images of some critters was pointless! This programme must have cost a huge amount of money that could have been better spent on producing a proper wildlife film series
Posted by: Kim | 21 May 2012 10:19:43
I don't know if anyone remembers but BBC tried the same thing a few years ago with Big Cat Diaries. It killed what was a superb series off. There's very little you can do "live", especially when your key location is plunged into darkness at your chosen broadcast time! Film crews spend hours in the field to get a few seconds of footage so how anything was to be broadcast live was asking alot. Take the program for what it is, the perils and tribulations of a few baby animals and it's OK. Problem is I'd expect this from Disney not the BBC. This most esteemed of wildlife documentary makers needs to come up with it's usual high standard program next or it's going to become a laughing stock.
Foxes on Chanel 4. Didn't see all of them, much to my disappointment, but what I did see was a very strong effort from the team behind it. Looking forward to another series.
Posted by: Paul Shaw | 20 May 2012 06:50:10
i have to agree with david,i half expected jeremy clarkson to stick his two pennorth in. why do the b.b.c think we will watch anything at all as long as they use thier well paid presenters.i gave up watching spring/autumn watch, as it got so focused on the presenters rather than the animals. so please dont cram the same faces on the tv over and over. as has been said, we have seen it all before. boring.!
Posted by: dee donworth | 19 May 2012 17:10:23
yes the choise of presentes is terrible,you see them reading off there notes,and as for having a petrol head, commenting on wild life,well WHAT next a big game hunter on wild life presenting?
Posted by: david | 18 May 2012 14:24:48
The BBC have some "favourite" presenters at the moment, & they rather assume that the public can't get enough of them.
Whether the public actually like them, or whether they are just pretty "faces" is another matter entirely. Can they present & are they at all knowledgeable about wildlife does not seem to count.
To be polite, I will not say which side of the fence I sit on, other than to mention that I turn over to another programme when they appear!
Posted by: mark | 17 May 2012 18:19:50