[cabbage]

So what's everyone's views on the new series then?

I watched the first episode in its entirety but I'm afraid I couldn't make it through to the end of the second before turning off.

I'm hating it so far. The visuals of the whales etc. are good - in fact in the usual BBC fashion they're much better than that, they're fabulous. The voiceover/narration on the other hand is, IMO, just awful. I just can't listen to it. What I did see of the second episode was mostly watched on 'mute'. Don't get me wrong I think Stephen Fry is a fantastic entertainer and I'll generally watch almost anything he's in, but in this series he just seem completely out of his depth (arf! ). As its not being broadcast on CBBC I assume this series is at least partly aimed at grown ups but the tone of voice used in his narration makes it sound like he's reading a bedtime story to five year olds. A wildly innapropriate bedtime story at times! The stuff on mating was interesting but coupled with the 'fnarr, fnarr' 'Viz' style of approach made it cringeworthy to watch.

Added to this feeling of watching a kids tv series is the word/theme choice throughout. In the first episode the narration appeared to be ranking whale species in order of 'friendliness' to humans. I'm sorry but is this a serious programme or not? We're getting loads of shots and sequences of scientists (too many IMO but thats another issue) but this is being interspersered with talk of whale 'friendliness' and their emotions. We had a long sequence last night on how the grey whales of one particular region had 'forgiven' the local human's for their whaling past despite being able to remember their past treatment. It was at this point that I turned off I'm afraid. Is this a science programme, a natural history programme, an episode of whale eastenders or the teletubbies?

The constant anthropomorphism of the whales/dolphins (in fact of a lot of animals in a lot of modern tv series) does neither the animal in question nor the humans watching any favours at all. Whales are not people wrapped in blubber who happen to live in the sea! If there is any sort of whale 'culture' then this approach is almost certainly doing it a massive disservice.

And don't get me started on 'Didier the diver'! I'm sure he's a lovely man and an excellent cameraman/scientist/whatever but is this series about him or the sealife? Theres as much footage of him swimming about as there is of the whales and I'm sorry but I know which I want to see and it ain't the frenchman! If we must be treated to his antics then why not stick it into a 10 minute segment at the end like they did on Planet Earth/Yellowstone etc.?

Rant over

[Thylacine]

Entirely agree with cabbage above. Stephen Fry is a very strange choice of narrator who's tendency is to dumb down the material. Again (Steve Backshaw or Kate Humble-like) he's gives no impression of actually knowing anything about what he's reading from the script. And it seems as if he's sensationalised the commentary just for humorous impact "Whale penis... oh ah...biggest there is.. yes Mrs." in a Frankie Howard manner. Very sad on what should be a showpiece documentary series. I didn't mind the enthusiasm of the camera men being filmed but it did often dominate what should be a wildlife show. Bring back Attenborough, Simon King or even Chris Packham if this is the best you can offer.

Bit disappointed that we didn't get anything new on Orca behaviour - just the rehashed material from the Blue Plant of the killing of the grey whale calf - I noticed too the commentary didn't say that the Killers only ate the calf's tongue and left the rest as was mentioned on the original commentary - an attempt to disguise the seemingly pointless slaughter in which they engage (so avoiding the bad PR). OK, orcas are highly mobile and Monterray Bay group travel to Oregan in search of prey... so why don't they just go south instead to the Gulf of California (closer) and kill the greys in the breeding grounds.... no explanation given. Maybe it's not a predation issue if they're only eating a fraction of the carcase?

[cabbage]

he's gives no impression of actually knowing anything about what he's reading from the script. And it seems as if he's sensationalised the commentary just for humorous impact "Whale penis... oh ah...biggest there is.. yes Mrs." in a Frankie Howard manner.

Thats exactly what I was trying to say but I couldn't work out how to!

Bit disappointed that we didn't get anything new on Orca behaviour - just the rehashed material from the Blue Plant of the killing of the grey whale calf - I noticed too the commentary didn't say that the Killers only ate the calf's tongue and left the rest as was mentioned on the original commentary - an attempt to disguise the seemingly pointless slaughter in which they engage (so avoiding the bad PR). OK, orcas are highly mobile and Monterray Bay group travel to Oregan in search of prey... so why don't they just go south instead to the Gulf of California (closer) and kill the greys in the breeding grounds.... no explanation given. Maybe it's not a predation issue if they're only eating a fraction of the carcase?

I also noticed that they didn't mention that the Orcas only ate the whale calf's tongue and have the same suspicions as you as to why. It really wouldn't do to suggest that they are capable of being (in human terms) nasty buggers . For the same reasons I wonder if there'll be any mention of the seemingly frequent infanticide amongst dolphin populations, not to mention their very aggressive sexual behaviour or their tendency to kill porpoises for - what seems to be - fun.

You raise a very interesting question as to why the Orcas behave as they do, that would be a really good one to answer. It almost reminds me of Human practices in some 'primitive' cultures of a symbolic coming of age rite - do juvenile Orca's have to take a trophy from a grey whale calf in the North before they can be considered 'men'... Now that really would be evidence of whale culture (I'm joking of course - though I am reminded again of the Terry Pratchett idea that dolphins are intelligent enough to have some very good PR agents! )

[Deimos]

I did not see the program discussed above but just seen "Great Migrations" on Ch4 and, whilst the photography was excellent, again Stephen Fry was narrating and it destroyed the program. The photography was so good I managed 15 mins but I just could not stand any more.

What is really disappointing is that it looks like somebody (maybe Fry himself) has decided he [Fry] is the person for such narration so I expect we can see many more destroyed documentaries. I certainly will be avoiding things he narrates in future !!

Ian

[Thylacine]

OK, BBC Natural History Unit here's a challenge. Rather than having Stephen Fry again ruin the commentary on the next wildlife triology, I know of two good natural history presenters with the potential to be great. They genuinely know their stuff. They have experience and they are enthusiastic/entertaining with out detracting from the subject (listen to the Podcast). I give you James Fair or Ben Hoare... please don't trash another series with Fry. Either of these guys will be a lot cheaper (!) and infinately better ,believe me.

[Hawk_Eye]

I agree with you lot about using Fry as the narrator. He's fine on Qi and such shows but for serious wildlife documentaries the narration needs to come an "authorative" voice. However what goes with that is an informative script as well. It seems that script-writers have no real idea of who will be watching the programme or their intelligence.
I admit I have enjoyed "Great Migrations" & "Ocean Giants" and have picked up some new knowledge from "Ocean Giants" but the way both have been rather patronising in the way they were narrated.
Having just had a look on Amazon I've found a new DVD that's coming out http://www.amazon.co.uk/One-Life-Daniel ... 590&sr=1-1 (has it been broadcast on TV yet?) which is narrated by Daniel Craig (a.k.a the new James Bond).
Did anyone see the series "Mountain Gorilla" which was narrated by Patrick Stewart?

[Thylacine]

So that's it decided. 100% of BBC Wildlife forum punters ie the only four people who post on this site: Hawk-eye, Deimos, Cabbage and I all think that Fry should go... Anyone else out there to give an opinion?

[Hawk_Eye]

So that's it decided. 100% of BBC Wildlife forum punters ie the only four people who post on this site: Hawk-eye, Deimos, Cabbage and I all think that Fry should go... Anyone else out there to give an opinion?

I was thinking about this the other day. The forum was quite lively a while ago but a lot of the "regulars" seem to have disappeared, even some of the newbies who appear don't seem to stay for long. Pity really because I've had some informative discussions on here.

[Thylacine]

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.

[MikeTe]

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.