If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Wimp)   One minute of footage takes two years to make. Bonus: BBC and Richard Attenborough   (wimp.com) divider line 22
    More: Sappy, Richard Attenborough, footage  
•       •       •

6472 clicks; posted to Video » on 31 Aug 2012 at 9:12 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



22 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-08-31 09:36:39 AM
If you're shooting it in a studio, using a blue screen, under extremely controlled conditions...it's not nature.
 
2012-08-31 10:10:13 AM
Wrong Attenborough brother subby, that's David.
 
2012-08-31 10:11:20 AM
David, you stupid Subby. David Attenborough.
 
2012-08-31 10:13:49 AM
RIP Richard Simmons.
 
2012-08-31 10:18:21 AM
Yeah, I'm going to have to agree that they're cheating. Using GCI and other camera tricks pretty much takes all of the "natural" out of nature. Sure it looks cool, but I'd rather have a realistic movie than something imagined by a guy with a computer. I could watch "Shreck" if I wanted to see fake computer stuff.
 
2012-08-31 10:28:17 AM

Marshall Willenholly: Yeah, I'm going to have to agree that they're cheating. Using GCI and other camera tricks pretty much takes all of the "natural" out of nature. Sure it looks cool, but I'd rather have a realistic movie than something imagined by a guy with a computer. I could watch "Shreck" if I wanted to see fake computer stuff.


I see your point, but without advanced techniques like time lapse and compositing the scene together, it would be as exciting as watching grass grow. And as was mentioned in the video, there is just no way to secure a shot like that given the change in light, the wind etc. Documentaries are a visual medium and do a lot better when they show, rather than tell and so long as the science it teaches the viewer is accurate, I don't have a complaint. Just like the landing sequence for the Curiosity rover NASA mocked up.
 
Ant
2012-08-31 10:39:23 AM
I love David Attenborough. WTF was up with Discovery replacing his voice overs with Sigourney (OK, but not as good as Attenborough) Weaver and Oprah (Are you farking kidding me?) Winfrey?
 
2012-08-31 10:40:46 AM
Seems Appropriate- this is a game my brother and I came up with after watching Planet Earth during workouts. We noted that the word "Earth" was mentioned every 15 seconds or so, and it sprang up around that. I have versions for other episodes of the show, this one is for the "seasonal forests" one.

Drinking Safari: Forests

Welcome to Drinking Safari: The quasi-educational drinking game narrated by David Attenborough. Prepare to witness wonders around the world and get sloshed while you see them, all from the comfort of your living room.

When you see Have

A time lapse shot 1 drink

An animal eating another animal 1 drink

Humans On Camera 1 drink

Animal Fighting/Sex 1 drink

Baby Animals A Jello Shot (optional)

A shot from space New Safari Guide (See below)


When you hear Have

planet, earth, or world 1 drink

tree/trees 1 drink

Safari Guide: Whenever there is a shot filmed from space, a random player is assigned the title of Safari Guide. S/he gets a safari hat. This player is allowed to assign any number of additional drinks to ANY player any time drinking is required due to another rule. The player remains Safari Guide until another shot from space, when a new Guide is named as successor.

Finally, ANY player may tell any former Safari Guide to drink at any time drinking is required due to another rule.

Health Advisory: There are a lot time lapse shots on safari. For the purposes of this game, one continuously changing shot is considered one drink. Unless you're hardcore and want to drink literally every time you see a new angle. Otherwise, consider each shot a "placeholder".


It's a lot of fun- it turns into a room of people yelling thinks like "BABY ANIMALS FIGHTING! DRINK 2!"
 
2012-08-31 10:56:51 AM

Marshall Willenholly: I could watch "Shreck" if I wanted to see fake computer stuff.


Actually, the computer was only used to composite shots of actual plants growing over the shot of the actual outdoor scene. That is not CGI, it's good, old-fasioned compositing.
 
2012-08-31 11:18:42 AM

Ant: I love David Attenborough. WTF was up with Discovery replacing his voice overs with Sigourney (OK, but not as good as Attenborough) Weaver and Oprah (Are you farking kidding me?) Winfrey?


WHAT? This is the first I've heard of such nonsense. Sir David is THE voice of nature shows (now that Lorne Green is gone back to nature himself).
 
2012-08-31 11:43:28 AM
Cool stuff.
 
2012-08-31 11:44:31 AM

Flakeloaf: Ant: I love David Attenborough. WTF was up with Discovery replacing his voice overs with Sigourney (OK, but not as good as Attenborough) Weaver and Oprah (Are you farking kidding me?) Winfrey?

WHAT? This is the first I've heard of such nonsense. Sir David is THE voice of nature shows (now that Lorne Green is gone back to nature himself).


Discovery often does this, probably because they don't want to scare off the Honey Boo Boo Extreme
Couponing Handfishing Gunsmith fans with a durn furren accent.
 
2012-08-31 01:05:26 PM
I'm mixed on the natural nature versus forced nature. They are all real plants but it's not a natural shot. But the goal was to show a woodland scene and the changes... they did that without CGI plants.
 
2012-08-31 01:17:14 PM
This really disappointed me with the Life series. Just film nature, that is what I want to see. I think it is cheating to film it in a studio even if they incorporated real plants. I don't think they did this with Planet Earth (if they did don't tell me, I don't wanna know). It made me wonder if Planet Earth was so popular they decided to cut corners to get a new series out fast.
 
2012-08-31 03:59:39 PM
www.documentingreality.com

Neat!
 
2012-08-31 05:31:53 PM
Thank Christ it wasn't Oprah narrating.
 
2012-08-31 11:49:16 PM
All these shows have studio shots. If something small is burrowing through a tunnel or eating something else, it's most likely been filmed in a glass tank in the studio.
 
2012-09-01 02:09:02 PM

h2oincfs: If you're shooting it in a studio, using a blue screen, under extremely controlled conditions...it's not nature.


Yeah seeing the blue screen kind of ruined it a little for me. It's still extremely interesting, but I always thought they were doing these shots in nature.
 
2012-09-01 03:30:58 PM
Sad to see it go by so fast.

Sad that it goes by so fast at all.
 
2012-09-02 03:05:20 AM
It was one shot.. maybe 20sec long. They weren't cutting corners.. they were going above and beyond to get it all into the one shot. Nothing was CGI.. they just composited real plant life into the real nature imagery. If they hadn't.. it would all look like one big blur. They aren't magical and can't stop nature from blowing wind, they can't stop the sun from going down every night, or the weather from ruining every shot. It had to be done partly in the studio to get the remarkable imagery they were looking for.
 
2012-09-02 06:25:33 PM

StokeyBob: Sad to see it go by so fast.

Sad that it goes by so fast at all.


be glad it went by at all..

/heavy
 
2012-09-04 08:26:20 AM

Smagma: It was one shot.. maybe 20sec long. They weren't cutting corners.. they were going above and beyond to get it all into the one shot. Nothing was CGI.. they just composited real plant life into the real nature imagery. If they hadn't.. it would all look like one big blur. They aren't magical and can't stop nature from blowing wind, they can't stop the sun from going down every night, or the weather from ruining every shot. It had to be done partly in the studio to get the remarkable imagery they were looking for.


That makes a lot of sense.
 
Displayed 22 of 22 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report