Planet Earth 2

After seeing the second episode tonight, I can't help but feel a little disappointed. I know that calling it "Planet Earth II" sounds like it's going to be more of the same, but for me it is a bit too much "more of the same".

Where the BBC team usually stand out, is showing us images of animals and/or behaviour never shown before. But the species in the first two episodes were not that unique (although admittedly some of the footage was pretty good), nor did I see behaviour I haven't heard of.

It's not that I didn't enjoy it, but sofar I am not as blown away as I previously have been by the BBC team. Am I just being too spoiled?
 
jwer said:
After seeing the second episode tonight, I can't help but feel a little disappointed. I know that calling it "Planet Earth II" sounds like it's going to be more of the same, but for me it is a bit too much "more of the same".

Where the BBC team usually stand out, is showing us images of animals and/or behaviour never shown before. But the species in the first two episodes were not that unique (although admittedly some of the footage was pretty good), nor did I see behaviour I haven't heard of.

It's not that I didn't enjoy it, but sofar I am not as blown away as I previously have been by the BBC team. Am I just being too spoiled?
Click to expand...

The thing about Wildlife films is there are only so many subjects that can be covered. The source of new material isn't limitless. Where they score is these subjects can be 'recycled' for subsequent viewing generations, and that's no doubt what is being done here in a way.
 
Like Jwer, I was a bit disappointed in Planet Earth II. The photography was good, but the programme was limited and only included mammals and birds. Why were bobcats and bears included, when there are so many other animals and why was so much time spent filming a bear rubbing its back against a tree? A programme about the Himalayas included jumping spiders. It wouldn't bother me if 'new programmes' recycled earlier material. The BBC has a wealth of natural history programmes that could provide material to compliment new films.
 
Pertinax said:
The thing about Wildlife films is there are only so many subjects that can be covered. The source of new material isn't limitless. Where they score is these subjects can be 'recycled' for subsequent viewing generations, and that's no doubt what is being done here in a way.
Click to expand...

Surely, where the BBC excells is new material? For me, it was what blew me away in Planet Earth (I) and it is what usually blows me away in most of their documentaries.

When they choose to do more or less the same topics again (mountains, islands, etc), I had expected a new story with new species, not marine iguana's, komodo dragons and snowleopards again. They took a long time and a lot of effort to film them the first time, why spent that much time in them again when there is so much more out there worth showing? Things that would be just as much "recyclable" imo.

I'm still watching though, it's still pretty good ;)
 
I thought the jungle programme was better than the mountain one, but each of the 3 programmes so far has shown films of species that have not been mentioned in the commentary. I'm sure that a script writer could have found something interesting to say about the lantern fly, hoatzin and diademed sifaka. This could be done by reducing the amount of padding, such as the bear rubbing its back or the male albatross waiting for his mate; it was inevitable that she would return.
 
Anyone else notice that the lions in the giraffe hunt sequence were all collared?
 
Yes , I noticed that . The giraffe that they started to chase was much darker than the one that they were shown attacking .
At the start of the sequence of zebras at the waterhole I think they showed a close-up of a Mountain zebra ( with dew-lap ) , whereas the herds shown were all Plains zebras .
 
I'm watching repeats of the first series of 'Planet Earth' on Yesterday and I think they are just as good as Planet Earth II. At the moment, there is an episode about caves, which don't appear in many wildlife programmes. The first series also included programmes on aquatic habitats.
 
Every episode is accompanied with the (too long) part of how they filmed it. There the public can see all the building, roads and people surrounding the nature.

I did not like the golden eagles with a mix of different-looking wild birds, a falconer's eagle carrying a camera and shots of the mountains filmed by a paraglider. It looked fake, like a mix of the animated eagles in 'Lord of The Rings' and a flight simulator game.
 
Loxodonta Cobra said:
Interesting argument about the series and how it avoids the topic of mass extinction:Planet Earth II 'a disaster for world's wildlife' says rival nature producer
Click to expand...

Will post my thoughts on Planet Earth II but wanted to adress my opinion on this article first.

You probably know what I'm going to say, and what I'm going to say is that I think it's pure poppycock. Planet Earth may not necessarily help wild life but there's certainly no proof or even slight evidence that it does the opposite. Attenborough comments plenty on the ever present dangers to wildlife in almost all of his nature films, Including the Planet Earth series. And if this guy thinks that constantly highlighting the negative of nature is the way to get pepole interested in it, he's sorely mistaken.

Point is, Planet Earth was made to be a program that shows us how nature is intended to be. There's nothing wrong with showing the beauty of nature as well as its ugly threats.

But I'm dragging it out...I liked Planet Earth II. Just liked it. I agree with many people on the lack of showcasing diversity. I mean, the first one had an entire episode on caves and its my favorite episode. I feel like, while still good amd sticking to their basic style, Planet Earth II was more like a show off of cinematography (and music the way they shoved Hans Zimmer in your face, don't get me wrong, I blast the trailer in my car, but it doesn't make up for the faults). All in all...I liked the first series way better. I felt like I had seen more animals and more places than I did in Planet Earth II.
 
littlewallaby said:
Will post my thoughts on Planet Earth II but wanted to adress my opinion on this article first.

You probably know what I'm going to say, and what I'm going to say is that I think it's pure poppycock. Planet Earth may not necessarily help wild life but there's certainly no proof or even slight evidence that it does the opposite. Attenborough comments plenty on the ever present dangers to wildlife in almost all of his nature films, Including the Planet Earth series. And if this guy thinks that constantly highlighting the negative of nature is the way to get pepole interested in it, he's sorely mistaken.

Point is, Planet Earth was made to be a program that shows us how nature is intended to be. There's nothing wrong with showing the beauty of nature as well as its ugly threats.

But I'm dragging it out...I liked Planet Earth II. Just liked it. I agree with many people on the lack of showcasing diversity. I mean, the first one had an entire episode on caves and its my favorite episode. I feel like, while still good amd sticking to their basic style, Planet Earth II was more like a show off of cinematography (and music the way they shoved Hans Zimmer in your face, don't get me wrong, I blast the trailer in my car, but it doesn't make up for the faults). All in all...I liked the first series way better. I felt like I had seen more animals and more places than I did in Planet Earth II.
Click to expand...

I loved the usage of word poppycock! How absolutely both funny, and appropriate. Love the adult dialog. Haven't seen Planet Earth 2 nor even first series. I've been thinking what if someone did program on wildlife and sharing what if everything you learned of animals is wrong!
 
littlewallaby said:
Will post my thoughts on Planet Earth II but wanted to adress my opinion on this article first.

You probably know what I'm going to say, and what I'm going to say is that I think it's pure poppycock. Planet Earth may not necessarily help wild life but there's certainly no proof or even slight evidence that it does the opposite. Attenborough comments plenty on the ever present dangers to wildlife in almost all of his nature films, Including the Planet Earth series. And if this guy thinks that constantly highlighting the negative of nature is the way to get pepole interested in it, he's sorely mistaken.

Point is, Planet Earth was made to be a program that shows us how nature is intended to be. There's nothing wrong with showing the beauty of nature as well as its ugly threats.

But I'm dragging it out...I liked Planet Earth II. Just liked it. I agree with many people on the lack of showcasing diversity. I mean, the first one had an entire episode on caves and its my favorite episode. I feel like, while still good amd sticking to their basic style, Planet Earth II was more like a show off of cinematography (and music the way they shoved Hans Zimmer in your face, don't get me wrong, I blast the trailer in my car, but it doesn't make up for the faults). All in all...I liked the first series way better. I felt like I had seen more animals and more places than I did in Planet Earth II.
Click to expand...
I agree, and I feel like they could have done more with planet earth 2 than they did, with only 6 episodes to the whole series. They clearly chose quality over quantity, and it's also worth mentioning that most of the footage they got was the first footage and only footage of it's kind. They chose to film in the most over the top ways of rare animals and behaviors never seen on film before, like the interaction between the Galapagos Racers and marine iguanas. They simply couldn't fit everything in.

Regarding the guy criticizing the series, planet earth didn't want to be a negative drag you down and make you feel bad about yourself documentary that doesn't inspire people to help the environment unless they already want to. If you noticed the way it was filmed, they showed you the beauty, then the struggles, then gave you hope that you can make a difference and we haven't killed our planet, something many modern documentaries do not do. This is particularly evident in the cities episode, which I found the most interesting out of all of them.
 
Just rewatched the 'Desert' episode of Planet Earth 2 this morning, and one thing I noticed is the amount of footage directly recycled from previous series, both on the BBC and other television channels:

- Several scenes around a waterhole in Namibia (in the sandgrouse sequence) were from the BBC's Africa series back in 2013
- Some brief clips of a jerboa and Ruppell's sand fox were from the BBC's Wild Arabia series also from 2013
- The entire mustang fight sequence and most of the desert thunderstorm and flash-flood sequence were directly taken from another 2013 series called North America, this time from the Discovery Channel

Was also rather put-out to see that footage with a number of rarer or little-filmed animals were left out in favour of others, like spectacled bears, aardvarks and brown hyaena. The latter I know were also cut from one of the BBC's other recent series, The Hunt.
 
In your opinion, is it worth watching, though?

There's still another week or two until it premieres over here in the States. The wait has stifled the initial excitement I felt after seeing the trailer for the first time, but the criticisms the series is getting - while not explicitly negative - are making me afraid that I'll be disappointed.

Planet Earth was the first BBC nature series I watched and is still, to this day, one of my favorites. It has been a huge source of inspiration for me, so you can only imagine how excited I was upon hearing the announcement of a sequel.

In the last two months, I've watched The Hunt, Frozen Planet, and Madagascar - all in their entirety - for the first time. Madagascar was good - not mind-blowing, but obviously not awful, given the subject matter. I found the program Attenborough and the Giant Egg far more interesting, however. The Hunt and Frozen Planet (even despite the controversies that the latter faced) I thought were wonderful, on the other hand. (I'm currently watching The Life of Mammals. My expectations are not too high, but 6 episodes in and I must say I am impressed for the most part.)

What can I expect with Planet Earth II? Obviously "more of the same," as noted above :D, but as far as wow-moments and new material? Are there any scenes similar to the lions hunting elephants scene from Planet Earth's Great Plains episode? For those of you who've seen it, where does it rank among your favorite BBC programs?

(Pardon the length of the post, haha. Just very excited to talk documentaries - I don't have many people in my everyday life who I can do that with. :p)
 
The cinematography is incredible - I would personally watch it for that reason alone. What I will say is that you should expect to see fewer sequences but each sequence that is there is longer and filmed much more artistically.

There are certain sequences that are definite wow-moments; there is one from the first episode (Islands) concerning marine iguanas that has been described by many as one of the best natural history sequences ever filmed. There are also some "more of the same" moments too - there is for instance yet another 'buffalo hunted by lions' sequence which has been filmed so many times that to be honest I can no longer get very excited by it.

In terms of ranking series, I guess it depends largely on your own personal preferences. If you enjoyed The Hunt and Frozen Planet then Planet Earth II should also appeal. I personally enjoyed it a great deal and most of my critiques are based more on personal preference than the actual quality of the programmes themselves.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top