8,162 posts
|
Post by alece10 on Apr 18, 2019 20:43:12 GMT
Did anyone else watch this?
It was stunning and I just sat there with my mouth open for an hour.
|
|
879 posts
|
Post by daisy24601 on Apr 19, 2019 18:16:43 GMT
No but I'm going to, based on a few seconds I saw on Twitter. It looks amazing.
|
|
4,214 posts
|
Post by anthony40 on Apr 20, 2019 5:33:24 GMT
I caught most of it and yes, it was stunning. Especially that they could see penguins poop in the Antarctic from space.
|
|
1,351 posts
|
Post by CG on the loose on Apr 24, 2019 23:56:18 GMT
Stunning is right. Love the combination of images, awe-inspiring in their own right, with the explanation of how they are being or could be used to benefit/protect our embattled planet. Love too the context they're placed in by bringing the view in tight. Brilliant concept, executed to perfection.
|
|
999 posts
|
Post by Backdrifter on May 13, 2019 23:34:03 GMT
I gave up on it very quickly. I love aerial and satellite imagery but couldn't stand it being wrapped up in the usual formulaic factual TV nonsense with its non-stop music and. Portentous. Voiceover full of.
Gaps.
Not to mention that it's been scripted as though for a Janet & John book. "From space. We can see. What the elephants. Can't."
It would work well if they did it as part of their attempt to do 'slow tv' which they started a couple of years ago with their canal trip film. Just have the satellite imagery only, with a caption every now and then to tell us what we're seeing. No surface imagery of animals and people, no voiceover.
Someone needs to grab these programme makers by their shoulders and shake them into not making all factual shows in exactly the same sodding way.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2019 9:20:05 GMT
I gave up on it very quickly. I love aerial and satellite imagery but couldn't stand it being wrapped up in the usual formulaic factual TV nonsense with its non-stop music and. Portentous. Voiceover full of. Gaps. Not to mention that it's been scripted as though for a Janet & John book. "From space. We can see. What the elephants. Can't." It would work well if they did it as part of their attempt to do 'slow tv' which they started a couple of years ago with their canal trip film. Just have the satellite imagery only, with a caption every now and then to tell us what we're seeing. No surface imagery of animals and people, no voiceover. Someone needs to grab these programme makers by their shoulders and shake them into not making all factual shows in exactly the same sodding way. Fair points. Although whilst some of it does seem formulaic and therefore familiar and repetitive, it's a formula that's proven to work (Blue Planet, etc) and helps to define the context of each situation. Imagine the Antarctic Penguin scene from the first episode with just satellite imagery and the odd caption - no explanation as to the brown patches or the insight into why they appear to swell, grow and move. Would probably make for un-engaging and confusing television. We do, however, live in the age of accessible information... Producer: www.facebook.com/chloe.pearne.5Director: twitter.com/furiouspandaltd?lang=enLet them know what you think, if you think things should be different. |
|
999 posts
|
Post by Backdrifter on May 14, 2019 12:07:46 GMT
I gave up on it very quickly. I love aerial and satellite imagery but couldn't stand it being wrapped up in the usual formulaic factual TV nonsense with its non-stop music and. Portentous. Voiceover full of. Gaps. Not to mention that it's been scripted as though for a Janet & John book. "From space. We can see. What the elephants. Can't." It would work well if they did it as part of their attempt to do 'slow tv' which they started a couple of years ago with their canal trip film. Just have the satellite imagery only, with a caption every now and then to tell us what we're seeing. No surface imagery of animals and people, no voiceover. Someone needs to grab these programme makers by their shoulders and shake them into not making all factual shows in exactly the same sodding way. Fair points. Although whilst some of it does seem formulaic and therefore familiar and repetitive, it's a formula that's proven to work (Blue Planet, etc) and helps to define the context of each situation. Imagine the Antarctic Penguin scene from the first episode with just satellite imagery and the odd caption - no explanation as to the brown patches or the insight into why they appear to swell, grow and move. Would probably make for un-engaging and confusing television.We do, however, live in the age of accessible information... Producer: www.facebook.com/chloe.pearne.5Director: twitter.com/furiouspandaltd?lang=enLet them know what you think, if you think things should be different. Is it a formula that's proven to work, or a formula we've long simply accepted? I think that much more minimal factual tv programming can be achieved in a way that isn't unengaging or confusing. The recent Gormley doc on the origins of art had none of the now familiar and overused trappings and was compelling and fascinating. It made me long for this approach to be more widely used but I fear it's a forlorn hope. Thanks for the links. I'm not on FB but will tweet the director. I have approached some programme makers before about this sort of stuff and not always got a good response, if any. |
|
