[sezwa]

What style of wildlife documentary do you like the least? For me personally I can't stand sensationalised programmes with titles such as "When Budgies Attack!" or "World's Deadliest Snails!" e.t.c

[Deimos]

There seems a trend with documentaries these days that they need "high drama" rather than "content". Some presenter walking through a field is "risking his life" (as a crazed swarm of starlings might attack him at any moment and lets face it, should an earthwork bite go septic ...). Often the presenter is more important than the subject matter. Celebrity culture seems to rule and it is all a real shame.

Maybe there is a place in the entertainment world for such entertainment but I don't like it dressed-up as documentary.

A separate recent thread raised SpringWatch and whilst I do not appreciate it's style and shortage of content (and that everything has to become extreme drama), I assume it is targeted at a specific type of audience - so I would probably never appreciate it. I do have criticisms of the SpringWatch series but "not my taste" cannot be a valid criticism when they are looking for a different audience (same as I don't like soaps - does not mean they should not make them, just that I wont watch them and when we start to get too many my "I don't like them" starts to carry more weight).

Maybe the real shame is with so few wildlife documentaries that so many are about the presenter rather than wildlife. There are rumours that Prof Brian Cox (the physicist) has decided he is now such a TV star he is also going to do a nature/wildlife mega documentary series. I desperately hope this is not so as the Astronomy ones were so awful (and has rather a lot of errors) - and lets face it, he is a physicist not a biologist. Were he to make such a series it would be just to enhance his status as a TV personality rather than present informative documentaries.

Thinking back, I suppose I find the presenter-less wildlife documentaries best (just with an off-screen commentator). The David Attenborough programs can be good but in general, presenter-less is best.

Ian

[Hawk_Eye]

At least Attenborough knows what he is on about. Actually some of these presenters do know what they are on about - Packham, Oddie, King, Buchanan, Baker etc all have excellent knowledge - what lets them down is how the script is written. I've heard that Attenborough writes all of his scripts but many are written by professional script writers who seem to think that we need to be given the information like a parent talks to their 8 year old. For me that's the truly irritating thing.

Out of interest Ian what documentaries would you recommend as being particularly good?

[Deimos]

Out of interest Ian what documentaries would you recommend as being particularly good?

Very difficult one to answer as it is often easier to describe what one does not like. Add that different people have different interests - so some will love documentaries about e.g. insects whilst other love more film of lions lazing around.

Not see a lot of documentaries that have really impressed me recently. Broadening the "wildlife" aspect, I do find The Sky At Night interesting - but also recognise that it is quite specialised and would never really be of general interest. There was a series based around a presenter a few years back done by Iain Stewart that I was very impressed with and found very interesting. He also did a one-off recently about the scientific causes of the tsunami in Japan that was also well done.

I think it critical that documentaries get their facts right. It is not difficult and they can always clarify "bleeding edge" with "it is thought ..." and similar and the more standard stuff - just a matter of researching decently or having a presenter who knows their stuff. Also critical that exotic locations are justified to show/illustrate something rather than just trying to turn the series into a "mega worldwide" series where the personality get to travel he world.

Another good series recently (again, based round a presenter) was the Chris Packham "An Animal's Guide to Britain" (or similar title). For those who did not see it, it was a short series, each 1hr program focusing of a specific habitat type (e.g. woodlands). Within each habitat/program they would focus of 3 interesting species/aspects each given around 20 mins. For example, one species was starlings which was fascinating but at a level people with a wide range of knowledge could understand an find interesting. They explained things by showing them, managing to get across some complex things in a way that most people would understand. It was strong on "informing" yet was clear and entertaining managing to encompass a wide audience. I wont go on about it but for me it was a real surprise as, whilst I rate Chris Packham I find his character jar's a bit but the series was excellent.

Ian

[Polardave]

I think that Deimos has hit the nail on the head in saying that presenter-less programmes are best. We live in an age where presenters regard themselves as celebrities and tend to get carried away by their own self of importance, which of course diminishes the wildlife footage.

[Glyn Jones]

like a parent talks to their 8 year old

that's what gets my goat, too!

[sezwa]

like a parent talks to their 8 year old

that's what gets my goat, too!

Same here it's so patronising!

[Hawk_Eye]

Agree with you. It's a big sign of how these programmes are dumbed down. I've noticed many documentary series have gone the same way, relying on the presenter to carry the programme rather than the subject.