Sir David Attenborough - Wildlife documentaries

[Swany]

Top Attenborough clip of all time was when he first started with th BBC and off he went to Papua new guinea. He is taken deep inland by canoe. Quite the English gentleman abroad in a white safari suit and hat. This tribe who wre genuine headhuters had all gathered along the banks of the river. Attenborough steps out of the canoe walks up to the chief, (who may never have seen a white man before) sticks his hand out and says "hello I'm from the BBC" the look on the chiefs face was priceless. :-)

[infernalis]

It's over... the episode was "Our Fragile Planet"

I am trying to find the schedule to see when more will be on.

[infernalis]

I like her even more now......

[infernalis]

BBC News - Sir David Attenborough close up with blind rhino

Watched the final installment of "Africa" - the future of Africa.

Very moving.

[infernalis]

3:00 minutes in.. excellent.

[crocdoc]

Originally Posted by jarich

Its funny how the different techniques are such a reflection of the two cultures. Attenborough is very much the polite, scholarly English gentleman explorer, while Irwin was the typical brash blue collar Oz bushman. I think they both love/loved the animals and had true passion for them, but our perspective drives that passion too.

There are two ironic things about this statement:
1. Irwin was not the typical Australian by a long shot. He created an archetype that made most people in Australia cringe. And no, we don't say 'crikey'.
2. Irwin was huge in the USA, not in Australia. Attenborough's documentaries were (and are) far more popular here than Irwin's shows. If it weren't for the US market, the world wouldn't know who Irwin was and we wouldn't be having this conversation in this forum.

I'm with Doberman when it comes to Irwin. I think his saddest legacy is that many of the networks will no longer produce a nature program unless it involves someone manhandling the animals. The BBC still does, of course, and I'm encouraged by the positive responses in this thread, but Nat Geo and Animal Planet will not. The other legacy is in the private sector. I'm glad that many people say they wouldn't have got into reptiles without Irwin's inspiration, but seeing the thousands of Irwin-wannabees on YouTube hassling the bejesus out of every reptile they find shows what a double-edge sword that is. Do we need that sort of inspiration?

When Attenborough's Life In Cold Blood was first released in the USA, it was cut short before all of the episodes were broadcast because the viewing public lost interest: no one was jumping on the animals. How sad is that?

Originally Posted by Ryodraco

Seems a bit harsh to say he "got what was coming to him" when his death was a freak accident (i.e. people are hardly ever killed by stingrays) and the man doubtless did more than most to encourage positive feelings toward misunderstood animals.

It's very true that people rarely get killed by stingrays, but to call it a freak accident is to pretend he wasn't likely way too close to the ray when it happened, given the nature of rays and the nature of the fatal wound. I'm not saying 'he got what was coming to him', but let's not pretend this was a ray coming out of nowhere stabbing someone in the chest because it felt like it. As for encouraging positive feeling, what does the rash of stingrays being slaughtered after his death say about the message his fans were getting?

Originally Posted by Ryodraco

And yes animals he encountered became defensive over the course of his handling them, but that's par-for-the-course with any such interaction. Researchers capturing animals to be weighed and measured certainly puts more stress on them than the few minutes of gentle handling Steve Irwin would subject them to....Lastly, he initiated such encounters for the sake of education, not some cheap thrill.

Researchers handle animals for a purpose other than entertainment. I wouldn't have minded if Irwin's programs were somewhat educational, but most of the time he was doing the animals a disservice by screaming out how aggressive they were (even though he had them by the tail which, of course, means they were being defensive rather than aggressive) and what the consequence would be if he got 'tagged'. People hate snakes, particularly in Australia. They don't need to be told, for example, that red-bellied blacksnakes (a famously placid elapid) are 'aggressive'. In my eyes, it was all about the cheap thrill and TeeVee entertainment.

Originally Posted by Ryodraco

As far as I understand it underneath the foolish facade he was a legitimate researcher who actually published scientific papers and knew what he was doing.

Aside from a couple of papers of breedings at Australia zoo, are you aware of any publications that you can tell us about?

Originally Posted by Ryodraco

Steve has done a lot in the conservation field that many are unaware of. I mean, a lot.

Are you able to outline any of it? Although his heart was in the right place, he did seem to have some odd ideas about conservation. For example, he was against the crocodile farm industry (which was one of the things that saved crocodiles in Australia by producing products without having to take crocodiles out of the wild, allowing them to be protected in the wild from the 1970s onward) and was also against the kangaroo industry (which is much more sustainable than breeding sheep for meat, because the latter didn't evolve here and consequently eat plants down to root level and then break up the roots with their hooves). I think what would surprise the massive number of reptile keepers that say they were inspired to keep reptiles because of him was his known disapproval of the private keeping of reptiles.

I have no doubt he was passionate and genuinely loved animals. Friends that knew him say he was as enthusiastic in life as he was on his shows (although people that worked with him, that I've spoken to, anyway, have been a little less generous about him). He may have been a great guy and a real animal lover, but I really objected to the message he gave most of the time, which was aimed to entertain rather than educate, making things look more aggressive and dangerous than they are and passing on the message that observing animals isn't enough - you have to dominate them through manhandling.

[infernalis]

Let's just say I do not own a single Irwin DVD, not would I care to.

However, I cannot get enough Attenborough, we just watched seven hours of "Life on Earth" (1979) over the weekend, Captivating. Even my teenage kids remain quiet and watch.

I have to say I have learned so much from these specials, The dying coral reefs, melting ice caps, deforestation & the overall condition of our planet is a hell of a lot more critical than some people would lead us to believe.

The permanent ice on top of Mt. Kilimanjaro is almost gone! The rain forests of the world are the very engines driving our weather patterns, they are in peril, the Ice caps reflecting the sun's energy back into space are melting away at an alarming pace, Polar bears are struggling to survive, we are burning out our planet at an alarming pace..

One thing I have always appreciated about the BBC, brutal honesty. No sugar coating to make us feel good.

[crocdoc]

Originally Posted by infernalis

Let's just say I do not own a single Irwin DVD, not would I care to. However, I cannot get enough Attenborough

That describes my DVD collection, too. I have a stack of Attenborough DVDs (including documentaries produced by him and some just narrated by him), a few produced by the ABC/BBC together and a smattering of others, including some independent documentary makers (Kaufmann productions - the people that made Lizard Kings). Not a single DVD of any personality-based reptile 'show' involving someone jumping on animals.

[Ryodraco]

Originally Posted by crocdoc

When Attenborough's Life In Cold Blood was first released in the USA, it was cut short before all of the episodes were broadcast because the viewing public lost interest: no one was jumping on the animals. How sad is that?

This is certainly sad, considering what a quality show it was. It is a simple and sad fact though that many casual fans of animal programming want to see blood and guts and hilariously overblown descriptions of how dangerous something is more than info on how complex reptiles really are.

It's very true that people rarely get killed by stingrays, but to call it a freak accident is to pretend he wasn't likely way too close to the ray when it happened, given the nature of rays and the nature of the fatal wound. I'm not saying 'he got what was coming to him', but let's not pretend this was a ray coming out of nowhere stabbing someone in the chest because it felt like it.

Perhaps, but people get close to stingrays all the time without incident. Heck tourists hand feed them in some places, standing in the water with them and don't get stung.

As reckless as Steve was or wasn't, he seemed pretty good at avoiding being bitten or stung by creatures he interacted with. Albeit he did realize the risk, and hoped that if he was killed by an animal it was not a crocodile, fearing that it would undo his efforts to give them a more positive image.

As for encouraging positive feeling, what does the rash of stingrays being slaughtered after his death say about the message his fans were getting?

It's a human reaction, not saying they are comparable in magnitude but the murder of Martin Luther King Junior was responded to with a great deal of violence, this didn't change his message of non-violence.

And as I recall the slaughter of stingrays was condemned by his wife and quoted as such by the media.

Researchers handle animals for a purpose other than entertainment. I wouldn't have minded if Irwin's programs were somewhat educational, but most of the time he was doing the animals a disservice by screaming out how aggressive they were (even though he had them by the tail which, of course, means they were being defensive rather than aggressive) and what the consequence would be if he got 'tagged'. People hate snakes, particularly in Australia. They don't need to be told, for example, that red-bellied blacksnakes (a famously placid elapid) are 'aggressive'. In my eyes, it was all about the cheap thrill and TeeVee entertainment.

Certainly I don't doubt this happened. It was the thrills and close encounters that made his show popular in the United States after all, but I always had the impression that Steve wanted to use them as a sounding board for conservation messages.

And quite often it seemed like he handled the animals to give the message about how NOT aggressive they were. He would frequently note how the snake only wanted to get away from him, or how it ceased trying to bite once it realized Steve was not trying to eat him. I especially recall him handling an inland taipan (at that time more popularly known as the fierce snake) noting it was "fierce by name, not by nature."

Aside from a couple of papers of breedings at Australia zoo, are you aware of any publications that you can tell us about?

Nope, but seeing his work on perentie breeding in a excellent book on monitor lizards impressed me as before that I didn't know he had any scientific credentials.

Are you able to outline any of it? Although his heart was in the right place, he did seem to have some odd ideas about conservation. For example, he was against the crocodile farm industry (which was one of the things that saved crocodiles in Australia by producing products without having to take crocodiles out of the wild, allowing them to be protected in the wild from the 1970s onward) and was also against the kangaroo industry (which is much more sustainable than breeding sheep for meat, because the latter didn't evolve here and consequently eat plants down to root level and then break up the roots with their hooves). I think what would surprise the massive number of reptile keepers that say they were inspired to keep reptiles because of him was his known disapproval of the private keeping of reptiles.

Just a note that I wasn't the one you quoted there, and I certainly agree those aspects of his conservation philosophy don't make much sense, but then again I don't think I ever heard him explain those views.

He may have been a great guy and a real animal lover, but I really objected to the message he gave most of the time, which was aimed to entertain rather than educate, making things look more aggressive and dangerous than they are and passing on the message that observing animals isn't enough - you have to dominate them through manhandling.

I can agree with this. While there were times where he simply observed the animals, they were overshadowed by the "close encounters" that made him famous.

[crocdoc]

Originally Posted by Ryodraco

Perhaps, but people get close to stingrays all the time without incident. Heck tourists hand feed them in some places, standing in the water with them and don't get stung.

Hand feeding them or wading in water with them is one thing, hassling them from above in shallow water is what gets one stabbed in the chest. That can't happen when hand feeding them or wading in shallow water. As I said, it is clear from the nature of stingrays and the nature of the wound what was going on at the time. Sad occurrence? Definitely. Freak accident? No. It was a ray defending itself.

Originally Posted by Ryodraco

And as I recall the slaughter of stingrays was condemned by his wife and quoted as such by the media.

That's not the point I was making. I did not suggest that his wife or anyone would have been in favour of the killings, what I was pointing out was that the supposed message of care/conservation people say he gave was clearly lost on his viewers. His program had too much "OMG crikey if I get tagged by this I am in so much trouble!" Consequently his viewers killed the rays in revenge. A bit like people wanting to kill the bull that takes the life of a famous bullfighter - it was the opponent and they are angry. If Attenborough were killed by some species of animal while filming its behaviour during a program, I'd be willing to bet his fans do not go on a killing rampage because the message behind his programs is so different from that of Irwin.

Originally Posted by Ryodraco

It was the thrills and close encounters that made his show popular in the United States after all, but I always had the impression that Steve wanted to use them as a sounding board for conservation messages.

At the cost of sending out a bad message about the animals? How is that conservation? The media is extremely powerful. If you have several hundred million viewers, as Irwin had, you want to be careful about what message you are sending out there.

Originally Posted by Ryodraco

And quite often it seemed like he handled the animals to give the message about how NOT aggressive they were. He would frequently note how the snake only wanted to get away from him, or how it ceased trying to bite once it realized Steve was not trying to eat him. I especially recall him handling an inland taipan (at that time more popularly known as the fierce snake) noting it was "fierce by name, not by nature."

The message can't be 'quite often'. It has to be always. For every show with that message, there are two or more with "look how aggressive it is!". However, I'm glad you mentioned the inland taipan, as I was about to bring that up as an example.

I'll tell you the story about how I had first heard of Irwin. I was on the telephone with a very good friend from my university days in Canada when he said "I had no idea how dangerous inland taipans were". My reply was "what makes you think they are dangerous?" In case you are curious, the inland taipan is the most venomous snake in the world but can hardly be classified as dangerous as there has never been a confirmed human death by one. They live in remote areas and are incredibly shy.
My mate then told me about this 'croc hunter' show, so I decided to watch a couple of episodes. I couldn't believe my eyes, as I was appalled.

I suspect this wasn't the show my mate had watched, but was one that came much later, but if you search youtube for Irwin and inland taipan, this is what comes up at the top.
Irwin and inland taipan

A few quotes (inbetween the loud 'snake' hisses added in the editing room).

"This is one wild unit!"

"This is the snake you don't want to get tagged by!"

"This bloke could have enough venom in one bite to kill 100 blokes my size!"

"You wouldn't want to take a whack of a snake this size!"

"She's just trying to tag Steve Irwin on the face"

"It's just starting to get a little bit aggressive" (he still has it by the tail)

"See it's coming back on me, it's coming back on me real fast!"

"make no doubt about it, it would whack its fangs into me at any given moment"

"see how it keeps lining me up? It's getting really really grumpy"

"how is that for a swing, straight at me"

Finally, most of the way through this series, he slips in one line that the snake just wants to get away.

Don't take my word for it, watch it for yourself.

Originally Posted by Ryodraco

Nope, but seeing his work on perentie breeding in a excellent book on monitor lizards impressed me as before that I didn't know he had any scientific credentials.

He didn't have any scientific credentials. Coincidentally, I read that paper when I was involved with perentie breeding at another facility. It was light on details, but zoo reports on monitor breeding often are, so that's no fault of his. Most zoo monitor breedings are haphazard occurrences and the conditions are described in hindsight. They are rarely repeated.

[crocdoc]

Oh, and I apologise for misquoting you on the conservation bit. That was remiss of me.

Just to be clear, I'm not an Irwin 'hater' and I don't think that everything he did was bad. I simply feel that when one is broadcasting to an audience of millions one has to be very clear on the message being sent out. One of the responses I've received over the years whenever this discussion comes up is "yes, but it's more entertaining doing it that way and the stations wouldn't get the same audiences doing it another way". Which is true, but would you be willing to do the animals you love a disservice by giving them bad PR if it meant more money/ratings for you? I have been involved in wildlife programs in which I've been interviewed and then later, in edit, the producers have added another narrator finishing the thoughts/sentence to turn the message around and I have regretted being involved as it's completely compromised my principles. For example, I was asked about the toxicity of an eastern brown snake's venom and my response was that although they are highly venomous, they avoid confrontation and will flee if given the chance. In the final program, I am seen saying that they are highly venomous, at which point I get cut off and we see a simulated snake-bite scene with an unseen narrator saying "...but what makes them REALLY dangerous is their aggressive blah blah blah". I hate it and cringe whenever it gets aired. Had the producers told me they'd be doing that I would have refused to be involved. What gets me particularly angry is that, prior to the program being filmed, I was assured that it wouldn't be yet another 'dangerous snake' program, that it would show the other side to snake behaviour and that I'd be able to qualify any statements of toxicity with another message, such as 'but bites are rare because the snakes avoid people' etc.

[Ryodraco]

Originally Posted by crocdoc

Just to be clear, I'm not an Irwin 'hater' and I don't think that everything he did was bad. I simply feel that when one is broadcasting to an audience of millions one has to be very clear on the message being sent out. One of the responses I've received over the years whenever this discussion comes up is "yes, but it's more entertaining doing it that way and the stations wouldn't get the same audiences doing it another way". Which is true, but would you be willing to do the animals you love a disservice by giving them bad PR if it meant more money/ratings for you? I have been involved in wildlife programs in which I've been interviewed and then later, in edit, the producers have added another narrator finishing the thoughts/sentence to turn the message around and I have regretted being involved as it's completely compromised my principles. For example, I was asked about the toxicity of an eastern brown snake's venom and my response was that although they are highly venomous, they avoid confrontation and will flee if given the chance. In the final program, I am seen saying that they are highly venomous, at which point I get cut off and we see a simulated snake-bite scene with an unseen narrator saying "...but what makes them REALLY dangerous is their aggressive blah blah blah". I hate it and cringe whenever it gets aired. Had the producers told me they'd be doing that I would have refused to be involved. What gets me particularly angry is that, prior to the program being filmed, I was assured that it wouldn't be yet another 'dangerous snake' program, that it would show the other side to snake behaviour and that I'd be able to qualify any statements of toxicity with another message, such as 'but bites are rare because the snakes avoid people' etc.

Is it ever possible to include in a contract that you have the right to see the final edit before it gets aired? I suppose not, given how complicated these things are.

[crocdoc]

I did ask, but that wouldn't happen.

[Donnie]

On another forum somebody found some critters in his viv so springtails were suggested rather than mites and then this popped up

[crocdoc]

Originally Posted by Donnie

On another forum somebody found some critters in his viv so springtails were suggested rather than mites and then this popped up

Awesome! Life in the Undergrowth?