Earthflight

[Billabong Karen]

You know what - I thought this program was a bit odd. I really enjoyed parts of it, especially the shots from the camera on top of the birds, but the narration put me off. Apart from poor grammar (I know, I'm a pedant), I also thought it too anthropomorphic. In addition, I felt they showed the same shot several times, and I didnt really appreciate the fact that several of the film sequences obviously were taken from a small plane or similar, scaring the flamingos etc in the process, although we were clearly meant to believe the footage came from a camera on an eagle.

On the whole, it's still a good program though. Perhaps I've just been spoiled by the absolutely superlative Frozen Planet series...

[Wild-Woman]

Originally Posted by Billabong Karen

You know what - I thought this program was a bit odd. I really enjoyed parts of it, especially the shots from the camera on top of the birds, but the narration put me off. Apart from poor grammar (I know, I'm a pedant), I also thought it too anthropomorphic. In addition, I felt they showed the same shot several times, and I didnt really appreciate the fact that several of the film sequences obviously were taken from a small plane or similar, scaring the flamingos etc in the process, although we were clearly meant to believe the footage came from a camera on an eagle.

On the whole, it's still a good program though. Perhaps I've just been spoiled by the absolutely superlative Frozen Planet series...

Frans de Waal quoted, 'To endow animals with human emotions has long been a scientific taboo. But if we do not, we risk missing something fundamental about both animals and us.'

I think this is true when the audience this programme needs to reach consists of the wider public to the science based viewer. I think some anthropomorhism is necessary.

[RobSutton]

Originally Posted by Wild-Woman

Frans de Waal quoted, 'To endow animals with human emotions has long been a scientific taboo. But if we do not, we risk missing something fundamental about both animals and us.'

I think this is true when the audience this programme needs to reach consists of the wider public to the science based viewer. I think some anthropomorhism is necessary.

I agree, perhaps would change "some anthropomorhism is necessary" to "some anthropomorhism is acceptable".

Some narrators seem to be able to pull it off without being too anthropomorphic (David Attenborough springs to mind) whilst others seem to need the more human narrative to sound convincing.

[Billabong Karen]

Yes, I agree that sometimes it is quite acceptable to assign human emotions to animals, and that it brings the drama and action closer to the viewer somehow. However, I do think this can give rise to a danger of creating 'good' and 'bad' roles for the animals. I was a bit put off for instance by the statement that 'like all bullies everywhere, the marabou backs down when faced with determined opposition' (or similar). The marabou stork wasn't a bully - he just wanted some dinner!

[markp]

Originally Posted by Billabong Karen

Yes, I agree that sometimes it is quite acceptable to assign human emotions to animals, and that it brings the drama and action closer to the viewer somehow. However, I do think this can give rise to a danger of creating 'good' and 'bad' roles for the animals. I was a bit put off for instance by the statement that 'like all bullies everywhere, the marabou backs down when faced with determined opposition' (or similar). The marabou stork wasn't a bully - he just wanted some dinner!

Another bit was the marabou "pecking the ground in frustration" when it didn't get food. That wasn't the only bit, but I did wonder a few times whether they were missing a proper explanation for behaviour in order to tell a story.

Another part was with the camera on the vulture's back - with the narration describing how the wings were working. When the vulture was descending for food there was a bit saying "feathers along her wing spring up to slow her even more". As far as I know, the coverts on the upper side of the wing have no function as air brakes - they were just getting lifted up by recirculating air on parts of the wing upper surface as the bird was descending.

[Jim Ford]

Originally Posted by markp

As far as I know, the coverts on the upper side of the wing have no function as air brakes - they were just getting lifted up by recirculating air on parts of the wing upper surface as the bird was descending.

Bernoulli 'at work'?

The air is speeded up over the top of the wing because of the longer path owing to the upper curvature. The increase in air velocity causes a drop in pressure, causing the higher pressure air below the wing to lift and maintain the bird in the air - flying.

I guess the aerofoil of the wing isn't perfect, so some turbulence occurs. Maybe some of the lower higher pressure air 'bleeds' through the wing to the upper surface, lifting the coverts in the process.

Don't tell the birds though - they might think too hard about it and lose their concentration on the process of flying!

Jim

[Billabong Karen]

That struck me too Jim - how incredibly complicated flying is, and how astonishingly wonderful it is that birds do it without even giving it a thought!

[John D]

The filming techniques of Earthflight becomes even more interesting.

See following -

Camerman takes to Edinburgh skies for Earthflight episode - Features - Scotsman.com

John D

[DecTob]

Did anyone think that the scene when the lion attacks the vulture about 15 mins in, that there is something really odd with the picture?

Would love to see a British version "Britfilght"

[Billabong Karen]

Originally Posted by John D

The filming techniques of Earthflight becomes even more interesting.

See following -

Camerman takes to Edinburgh skies for Earthflight episode - Features - Scotsman.com

John D

Wow - that's amazing! I wish/hope they do a 'making of' episode... That would be incredible to see.