BBC Wild Burma.

I watched this one and was a little disappointed really. I like the 'Cameraman/scientist/exploration' mix format that has been used in several Natural History series in recent years but this time there was very little wildlife featured and it centred almost entirely around the search for the elephants and not a lot on them either. Predictably there were fleeting and long distance shots of actual elephants earlier on, with the best and close-up shots being saved for the final minutes of the programme.

Also, the narration kept emphasing that 'the team needed to find baby elephants in the herds' to prove they were breeding and conservation was worthwhile(?) seemingly implying non-breeders weren't worth the effort. It seemed an odd statement to make, considering that any herds of elephants that have lived pretty much undisturbed for five decades are bound to be breeding. So it was no surprise to me when they 'found' calves in the herd.

There are two more episodes so I'm hoping for better in them.

 

The fact that the forests in question also held dhole, leopard, hornbills & various primates apparently didn't make them worth preserving(?!?) - only baby elephants could do that!
A disappointing start to the series. Hopefully the next program will be better.

 

I have it recorded as we never watch things live so may be i should watch it on fast forward. A bit like the penguin thing with Michaela Strachen who seamed to think it was as much about her as the penguins. I deleted the second one, how many times do you need to see the presenter mess up drop the fish loose the penguin, Ididn't think the rest of the helpers looked to amused with it all either.

 

Mmm I decided to watch the recording instead of hoovering i thought it a bit of a disappointment, they showed some nice footage from the camera traps with only a cursory mention elephants and Leopard being named, the time they showed shots of tired presenters and another elephant track could have been spent looking at the bee eaters or butterflies and a lot could have been done as voice overs. I suppose in the second one we will see the Golden cat in the last five minutes too. Attenborough lets the animals talk not continually do shots to camera stating the blooming obvious. the show could be trimmed in half with out the padding.

 

Very much so- I think there was less than 15 minutes of actual wildlife all told- the Elephants, plus the camera-trap shots of other species, a G.I. Hornbill and that was about it.

 

All in all, same perception here. For me it was a crying shame to have so many expensive camera's in an ecologically amazing place and have so few shots of wildlife

I also don't like the American-style need to "hunt" or "find" something (excuses me for generalising American shows), trying to build a tension which obviously wasn't there, as Pertinax pointed out allready. I mean, they're BREEDING? REALLY?

I also miss the bug-man

Next time they really need to sent me...

 

Yes, he is good, his enthusiasm brings it all to life. Although I normally find this 'scientific discovery' format to work quite well, this time IMO it didnt, at least in this episode which was just lacking a lot really.

 

Episode two.

I can't make up my mind if I enjoyed this one more than the first in the series. It was a little stronger on the scientific discoveries with the entomology/butterflies and the small reptiles/mammals caught in the pitfall traps.

The larger carnivores proved as elusive as ever, Golden Cat, Clouded Leopard and Sunbear being recorded only with the camera traps(and some of the footage already looked familiar, having briefly featured in the first programme too). It just proves how hard such species are to film any other way. There were a couple of daytime Sunbear shots, but little was made of them so possibly they had been shot elsewhere at some other time? Again the overall main 'storyline' was based, rather weakly I felt, and like the Elephants previously, around 'proving' that the sunbears were still breeding, and a grainy shot of two bears was enough to do that apparently. And again like the Elephants previously, this was to 'convince the authorities' to protect these forests- surely the reality is that the diversity of everything else they recorded and the whole ecosystem is worthy of protection anyway.

 

I found this second episode more interesting than the first- partly because there was a greater sense of 'scientific discovery'.

One thing I did notice that annoyed me however, was the usage of this clip of an African golden cat when they referred to the Asiatic species:
African golden cat video - Caracal aurata - 00 | ARKive

 

Part of the set-up is so that it can also be sold across the world. Previous similar series have been joint projects between the BBC & Discovery Channel. This also helps account for some of the repetition and the convenient appearance of some animals before the ad-break gaps.

I thought I'd watch the first episode with an open mind. I would have really liked them to spend more time on more obscure animals, like the glimpse of what looked like it may have been a red goral; or the rarer langurs. I also don't think any scientific justification for filming baby elephants - if there was any - was explained very well. I guess from the public's point of view it was probably very good.
I miss George McGavin's enthusiasm too.

I stopped watching the second episode a few minutes in after being extremely disappointed; the introduction includes BBC stock footage of an African golden cat which they try to pass of as one of their target species in Burma. Granted, it was better quality than the same clip online, but it's no Asiatic golden cat.

 

I watched part 2 last night, if they especially the Scottish chap didn't badly over act it wouldn't be so bad, it is all staged then tries to appear spontaneous which it isn't. The shots of the birds and insects went unnamed again which even with subtitles on the screen would have been something.
The apparently spontaneous trip to a local market which on the mapactually looked hundreds of miles away was distressing with leopard skins and elephant trunk freely available for sale, not to mention a tiny cage with three rap tors of some sort in side, as well as the monkeys etc.
I couldn't help but wonder that the audience -all men it appeared- who gathered to watch the video of the camera traps etc, went with an eye to see what was still living there to catch. The whole series is a great opportunity wasted as far as I can tell.

 

I've only watched the second episode so far. I enjoyed it but found the scenes at the end fairly predictable. The first programmes of this genre were innovative and exciting but now the novelty is starting to wear off. I appreciated the lack of intrusive music.

What always puzzles me about films where the camera wo/men feature prominently is - who is filming them? I can see that the woman* who always gets the night time shifts sitting at the tops of trees films herself, but what about Gordon Buchanan? Did he stop to set up a camera while a fire raged behind him or does he have his own personal cameraman in attendance?

* In the cause of female solidarity I've looked up her name - Justine Evans

 

They are filmed by other camerapeople (or each other?), who don't need to be specialist Wildlife camera persons obviously. Mind you, in this series there has been very little need for specialist wildlife filming anyway- apart from maybe the Elephants. Most of the rest so far has been largely cameratrap footage.

I agree with whoever said most of the 'smalls' aren't being identified either, except the odd one which gets a lot of attention- it would be nice if the others were named too, at least visually.

Part Three will have to be good to bring this series up to scratch IMO.

 

Must get a bit crowded at times! I think I prefer the David Attenborough approach to the prominent cameraperson being filmed filming. When Mr Buchanan was in his perspex box bothering polar bears in another series, I probably wasn't the only one cheering on the bears

 

A serious issue. We are in danger of bringing up a generation that simply doesn't KNOW about the small and the less celebrated. They won't see (say) Finlayson's Squirrel in major UK zoos, and they won't see it on television. What is the answer?

 

In the old days, 'Wildlife films' were full of wildlife- the whole programme, not just a tiny percentage as here. The narration (or presenter) described the animals, what they were, what they were doing etc. I have noticed that in this and other of these 'scientific discovery'-style programmes, there are various quick shots of animals such as 'monkey' or 'hornbill' but they are like a wildlife backdrop- no description or comments are made about them. That would be okay if there was masses of wildlife in the rest of the programme, but there isn't.

 

i believe it was me who mentioned the small species being over looked, any one with only a very general interest in wildlife would be wondering what the nice red birds were or the butterflies, it's OK telling us the have eyes on their a**e, what do they call it, the eyed ass butterfly?
Also when the entomologist up in his tree with the light trap the camera man filming him was visible in the long shot back to the tree. None of the local experts get much of a look i either, never mind the camera men. the people who most likely tell them where to put the traps or cameras for the best results. Did any one else think the roads seemed very good for a remote section of forest?

I think Ian we have already lost at least one generation that has no idea of the small things in life, there parents didn't bother so they don't simple. At least if they save the forest they save not only the elephants and bears, but the whole life system as well.
Sir David Attenborough said the same thing this week apparently, stating if the panda dies out it's no big deal, but if the whole bamboo forest they live in dies out then that effects everything.
Another real problem also highlighted a while ago by sir David is everything is protected by law, from birds eggs to frog spawn, you need licenses or permission from land owners to collect things. how is any child going to take an interest when they can't touch, hold, or breed anything.
my childhood was spent with jars and fish tanks full of tadpoles newts etc, I never collected birds eggs but I knew where they nested and what each birds egg looked like. I was looking through an old "Observers book of Pond Life" last night, the inscription in the front reads "Happy thirteenth birthday love from Mam and Dad" how many 13 yr olds today would be as thrilled as I was all those years ago? (very nearly 40) Come to think of it i still have newts on the bedroom window sill and over wintering in the summer house, Alpine and Spanish ribbed rather than the common or palmate I hasten to add.

 

Ah foot print casting, the walk to the chemist for plaster of Paris then nicking the Talcum powder out of the bathroom and going off with bottles of water and old bowls, -not always old ones- strips of card to surround the print, mixing the plaster the waiting for what seamed like hours to see
if it had worked, all for a horse shoe or rabbit track occasionally a hedge hog and sometimes a fox or partridge.

In fact we have a hole under our fence which leads under next doors deck, I stuffed it with leaves and they keep disappearing so not sure if it was Rat or hedgehog I laid a foot trap of fine moist sand in a seed tray, it partly worked as I got what i think are hedgehog tracks, but not from the hole directly, and it seams to have tap danced along the edge there and back, so hard to decide.

I don't know where in Northumberland you are talking about TLD but have you seen the dippers in and around the burns at Otterburn?