Discussion in 'TV, Movies, Books about Zoos & Wildlife' started by Loxodonta Cobra, 5 Nov 2016.
Planet Earth 2 trailer released.
It will premiere 6 November 2016 in the UK and 28 January in 2017.
After seeing the second episode tonight, I can't help but feel a little disappointed. I know that calling it "Planet Earth II" sounds like it's going to be more of the same, but for me it is a bit too much "more of the same".
Where the BBC team usually stand out, is showing us images of animals and/or behaviour never shown before. But the species in the first two episodes were not that unique (although admittedly some of the footage was pretty good), nor did I see behaviour I haven't heard of.
It's not that I didn't enjoy it, but sofar I am not as blown away as I previously have been by the BBC team. Am I just being too spoiled?
The thing about Wildlife films is there are only so many subjects that can be covered. The source of new material isn't limitless. Where they score is these subjects can be 'recycled' for subsequent viewing generations, and that's no doubt what is being done here in a way.
Like Jwer, I was a bit disappointed in Planet Earth II. The photography was good, but the programme was limited and only included mammals and birds. Why were bobcats and bears included, when there are so many other animals and why was so much time spent filming a bear rubbing its back against a tree? A programme about the Himalayas included jumping spiders. It wouldn't bother me if 'new programmes' recycled earlier material. The BBC has a wealth of natural history programmes that could provide material to compliment new films.
Surely, where the BBC excells is new material? For me, it was what blew me away in Planet Earth (I) and it is what usually blows me away in most of their documentaries.
When they choose to do more or less the same topics again (mountains, islands, etc), I had expected a new story with new species, not marine iguana's, komodo dragons and snowleopards again. They took a long time and a lot of effort to film them the first time, why spent that much time in them again when there is so much more out there worth showing? Things that would be just as much "recyclable" imo.
I'm still watching though, it's still pretty good
I thought the jungle programme was better than the mountain one, but each of the 3 programmes so far has shown films of species that have not been mentioned in the commentary. I'm sure that a script writer could have found something interesting to say about the lantern fly, hoatzin and diademed sifaka. This could be done by reducing the amount of padding, such as the bear rubbing its back or the male albatross waiting for his mate; it was inevitable that she would return.
Anyone else notice that the lions in the giraffe hunt sequence were all collared?
Yes , I noticed that . The giraffe that they started to chase was much darker than the one that they were shown attacking .
At the start of the sequence of zebras at the waterhole I think they showed a close-up of a Mountain zebra ( with dew-lap ) , whereas the herds shown were all Plains zebras .
So the series ended officially. However this isn't the end. BBC might make us wait for a few more years: The BBC wants to make Planet Earth III before David Attenborough turns 100
At the end of the final episode, we received a very great message from David Attenborough himself; and it may make some people cry: David Attenborough's final sign off for Planet Earth II might make you cry
I'm watching repeats of the first series of 'Planet Earth' on Yesterday and I think they are just as good as Planet Earth II. At the moment, there is an episode about caves, which don't appear in many wildlife programmes. The first series also included programmes on aquatic habitats.
The current programme on mountains has just shown geladas, Walia ibexes and an Ethiopian wolf.
Interesting argument about the series and how it avoids the topic of mass extinction:Planet Earth II 'a disaster for world's wildlife' says rival nature producer
Every episode is accompanied with the (too long) part of how they filmed it. There the public can see all the building, roads and people surrounding the nature.
I did not like the golden eagles with a mix of different-looking wild birds, a falconer's eagle carrying a camera and shots of the mountains filmed by a paraglider. It looked fake, like a mix of the animated eagles in 'Lord of The Rings' and a flight simulator game.
Will post my thoughts on Planet Earth II but wanted to adress my opinion on this article first.
You probably know what I'm going to say, and what I'm going to say is that I think it's pure poppycock. Planet Earth may not necessarily help wild life but there's certainly no proof or even slight evidence that it does the opposite. Attenborough comments plenty on the ever present dangers to wildlife in almost all of his nature films, Including the Planet Earth series. And if this guy thinks that constantly highlighting the negative of nature is the way to get pepole interested in it, he's sorely mistaken.
Point is, Planet Earth was made to be a program that shows us how nature is intended to be. There's nothing wrong with showing the beauty of nature as well as its ugly threats.
But I'm dragging it out...I liked Planet Earth II. Just liked it. I agree with many people on the lack of showcasing diversity. I mean, the first one had an entire episode on caves and its my favorite episode. I feel like, while still good amd sticking to their basic style, Planet Earth II was more like a show off of cinematography (and music the way they shoved Hans Zimmer in your face, don't get me wrong, I blast the trailer in my car, but it doesn't make up for the faults). All in all...I liked the first series way better. I felt like I had seen more animals and more places than I did in Planet Earth II.
I loved the usage of word poppycock! How absolutely both funny, and appropriate. Love the adult dialog. Haven't seen Planet Earth 2 nor even first series. I've been thinking what if someone did program on wildlife and sharing what if everything you learned of animals is wrong!
I agree, and I feel like they could have done more with planet earth 2 than they did, with only 6 episodes to the whole series. They clearly chose quality over quantity, and it's also worth mentioning that most of the footage they got was the first footage and only footage of it's kind. They chose to film in the most over the top ways of rare animals and behaviors never seen on film before, like the interaction between the Galapagos Racers and marine iguanas. They simply couldn't fit everything in.
Regarding the guy criticizing the series, planet earth didn't want to be a negative drag you down and make you feel bad about yourself documentary that doesn't inspire people to help the environment unless they already want to. If you noticed the way it was filmed, they showed you the beauty, then the struggles, then gave you hope that you can make a difference and we haven't killed our planet, something many modern documentaries do not do. This is particularly evident in the cities episode, which I found the most interesting out of all of them.
Separate names with a comma.