[cabbage]

Hi, adding to this discussion and to my comments on another post, I personally did not mind Mr Fry's commentary, and my partner and I both really enjoyed the shows. 
If you all thought it dumbed down then that's fine but remember these shows are for everyone not just those who know it all and want a strictly scientific show. 
Also there's nothing wrong with bringing in a known presenter if it helps to bring in people who like his work but would not normally watch these kind of shows, don't forget if these shows don't get ratings they don't get shown.  As for humanising the whales why not, these are not dumb animals, they are intelligent, and definitely have emotions, denying that would be wrong.

Hi MikeTe, welcome aboard!

I'm not sure if I'm saying I thought it was 'dumbed down' - I don't really like that phrase as I'm pretty dumb myself, I like my sciencey shows as dumb as possible! . I do however quite like them to stay within the bounds of actual science. IMO you cannot do that whilst talking about the 'emotions' of an animal, particularly when all you're really doing is projecting human emotions onto that creature.
Bear in mind I'm not trying to claim any special status for humans, we're just animals too of course, but we don't really understand our own emotions and it seems odd to me to try and assume everything else shares them. There are people in this world (very many people, in fact whole cultures) who don't share what we in the west would consider 'normal' emotional responses to all sorts of issues - and in turn many of our emotional responses will no doubt seem weird to them. In fact even in Britain much of what we'd consider 'normal' would have seemed very abnormal to our ancestors of only 100-200 years ago. No doubt the same will apply in the future. A good example of that in fact might be current and past human attitudes to whaling here and in other cultures like Japan.

With that in mind I think a serious natural history programme making claims about the 'friendliness' of certain species of whales towards people, and how some whales have 'forgiven' their past tormentors is absurd.

Actually the more I think about it I'm starting to argue myself into the position of it being dumbed down amn't I? Hmm!

On the point of Stephen Fry as presenter, I absolutely agree that he's a wonderful broadcaster and something of a national treasure. I really like a lot of his stuff but I don't think he is at all suited to this particular format. He's a comedian at heart, IMO, and it shows through in almost everything he does. He's got a wonderful nose for what's funny but his voice for me doesn't carry the gravitas that is needed for a show like this. His particular style of humour was visible throughout the script and it didn't work.

I just found it cringeworthy I'm afraid. Though I've no doubt I'll be in a minority (off this site at least ). Maybe the show wasn't intended to be taken as seriously as some of the past BBC natural history stuff?

[cabbage]

Yes.... it's sad that Dodger, Sandra, Coelacanth etc no longer appear to be around. They really knew their stuff

Remember Fishsnorkel ? - he was really controvertial and unorthodox but debating with him was probably the best fun on this forum I've had. Pity he's gone too. I've considered moving on ... just don't know where.

Please other punters, comment if you are interested.

I was too late to meet most of thos posters unfortunately. Its a shame because this really does have the potential to be a great site if the traffic could pick up a little.

Maybe we should all try being really controversial? Hmm, I think Sir David Attenborough is rubbish and every British household should be given a lion as a pet so we can wipe out starlings quicker...

[Hawk_Eye]

It wouldn't have been as bad if the script had been written differently. It may just be me but there seems to be a lot of pointing-out-the-obvious in the scripts usually when what's being said can be seen on the screen. Script writer's seem to think that everything should be turned into a drama/soap opera. The natural world is raw and untamed.

The other part of the problem is that we project ourselves onto wildlife. All of these things such as culture, emotions, likes, dislikes are just concepts to help us understand the world around us. 500 years from now human's understanding of the world is likely to be quite different and our descendants will be saying "our great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandparents had some funny ideas".

I was too late to meet most of thos posters unfortunately. Its a shame because this really does have the potential to be a great site if the traffic could pick up a little.

Certainly does.

Maybe we should all try being really controversial? Hmm, I think Sir David Attenborough is rubbish and every British household should be given a lion as a pet so we can wipe out starlings quicker...

Lions chasing starlings in the back garden, now that's a sight to see.

Remember Fishsnorkel ? - he was really controvertial and unorthodox but debating with him was probably the best fun on this forum I've had. Pity he's gone too.

I sparred with him a few times. One particular gripe of his was that BBC Wildlife magazine should not be considered the greatest natural history magazine. I had great fun discussing that and a few other things with him.

[Thylacine]

Maybe we should all try being really controversial? Hmm, I think Sir David Attenborough is rubbish and every British household should be given a lion as a pet so we can wipe out starlings quicker...

[Thylacine]

Fishsnorkel ? - I sparred with him a few times. One particular gripe of his was that BBC Wildlife magazine should not be considered the greatest natural history magazine. I had great fun discussing that and a few other things with him.

I actually visited his website (yes, he's that egocentric to have his own website) and tried to persuade him back...but failed. He was really that much fun!