Hacker Cinema
Planet Earth
2006 · TV series · documentary · 1 season
David Attenborough celebrates the amazing variety of the natural world in this epic documentary series, filmed over four years across 64 different countries.
41 positive3 negative1 mixed13 neutralfrom 58 commenters
Where to watch
No streaming data for this title.
58 comments on Hacker News
Cars are actually surprisingly maintainable by an "average" user - if you maintain them the same way the repair shops do - replacing parts.
What old cars had was the ability to fix things without replacing parts - but most of those kinds of repairs (think: adjusting points, etc) are no longer necessary at all.
A modern car tells you what is wrong (usually) and you can have an auto parts store read the codes, search YouTube for a video on it, and order parts and replace it yourself.
You need to go back pretty far to find vehicles that can be repaired by the side of the road in Outer Mongolia with nothing but a hammer and a bag of random pieces of metal (iirc, this was in the extended features of Planet Earth, maybe the Snow Leopard episode - sadly, not about macOS at all ;).
Demoiselle crane flies over Himalayas and over Everest during its yearly migration, so it'd be flying at least 30k feet high.
I only know that from Planet Earth documentary, which was such a great show!
1. Bill Cunningham New York
2. General Magic(2018)
3. The Armstrong Lie
4. Icarus (2017 film)
5. Man on Wire
6. Baraka & Samsara
7. BBC Planet Earth
8. Finding Vivian Maier
1.1: Google some low-light performance reviews of cinema cameras - you'll see that ISO noise is decreasing with every generation and that some cameras (like from Sony) have that as a selling feature.
1.2.: Google "how to shoot a night scene" or something like that. You'll find most advice goes something along the lines of "don't crank the ISO up, add artificial lighting to brighten shadows instead". When given a choice, you'll also find cinematographers use cameras with particularly good low-light performance for dark scenes (that's why dark scenes in Planet Earth were shot on the Sony A7 - despite the "unprofessional" form factor, it had simply the best high-ISO performance at the time)
2: Google "film grain effect". You'll find a bunch of colorists explaining why film grain is different from ISO noise and why and how you should add it artificially to your films.
I just watched Wild Ones on AppleTV, and I feel the same way about that series. IMDb has a tag line "Investigates the delicate ecosystems of our globe and finds information on how to help conserve and protect the most priceless endangered species." However, the entire thing felt more like a glorified influencer vlogging their vacay. It was much more about the camera people than the animals. I know this wasn't Planet Earth, but the footage they acquired was not the prominent bits of the series. It was produced well enough that I watched each episode and I was curious about each episode, but they all left me with the same feeling of meh about it.
Some of these articles are definitely more about the author being able to say they write than it is shedding light on anything or providing any kind of insight. It's all just gross to me
As someone with a background in both film and video production technologies (as well as being a high-end home theater projection enthusiast) I think this project is doomed to be terrible - and not just on aesthetic grounds but also technically (I'll explore why it's technically doomed in the next paragraphs). But first, what might be good about this? Well, it might be interesting seeing how well they get AI video to maintain consistency of elements between shots. The article is vague but, extrapolating, I assume they probably composited multiple establishing and master shots along with production stills and set schematics to stitch together extended master environment reference plans. Then 3D artists modeled, textured and lit photo-real versions of these extended environments to match the stitched reference material. Those were then used as fine-tuning to constrain the AI outpainting to that ground truth. It might be interesting to see these techniques used to extend the original WoZ 4:3 aspect to a 2.4:1 widescreen format. However, I think it's going to be a disaster because they're extending the outpainting to encompass the Sphere's extreme 165 degree horizontal field of view. Pushing that far will derail any aesthetic or technical value the project may have had.
The biggest technical problem is a 165 degree FOV is not just ill-suited for theatrical storytelling, it's actively harmful because it significantly constrains the compositional and creative choices a director and cinematographer can make. Historically, Hollywood has experimented with a variety of wider (or taller) than typical cinematic formats including Omnivision, Circle-Vision 360, MagnaVision, Cinerama, IMAX and many others. Over many decades of experimentation, it became clear that, for cinematic storytelling, formats up to around 2.5:1 were mostly upside assuming the costs and space could be supported. Extra-wide formats like Cinerama and IMAX had creatively useful upsides but came with some significant downsides which could be minimized with careful handling. Ultra-wide formats like Omnivision, Circle-Vision and, now, Sphere, were primarily useful only for theme parks and short "You Are There"-type features such as Disneyland's Circle-Vision Grand Canyon tour. It can be helpful to refer to the reference chart on this page showing the different FOVs in a typical theater overlaid with the SMPTE, THX and 20th Century Fox recommended FOVs. https://acousticfrontiers.com/blogs/articles/home-theater-viewing-angles-distances-and-sightlines
Experimentation showed that ultra-wide formats, which are more than double typical cinematic FOVs and originally developed for world fairs, are simply ill-suited to cinematic storytelling. In addition to audience fatigue during longer run-times, significant technical challenges of optical distortion, and high costs - perhaps the worst part was the director losing much of the ability to signal to the audience what's important through framing and composition. This signal channel between the director and audience usually goes unnoticed by most viewers but it's a profoundly important storytelling tool for directors and cinematographers. To be fair, I do think immersive/surround visual formats can be useful in the context of a theme park attraction, amusement ride, VR headset or interactive gaming. They just don't work well for cinematic storytelling - like Wizard of Oz. It's a good tool being used for the wrong job.
Recently, I screened the "Postcards from Earth" movie at the Sphere. This movie was created specifically to launch the Sphere and is their featured demo. And they indeed struggled mightily with the issues I've outlined. Ultimately, they chose to mostly not use more than about a 60 degree slice from the center of their 165 degree canvas, at least for anything significant to the story. All that very expensive, compromise-causing extended FOV was relegated to ambient scenic support except for a few brief "stunts" where some large object would arrive from overhead or an edge. But even those would quickly move from being at the edges (and too close/big), to exist in the center 60 degrees like everything else. Also, Sphere content must strictly limit any camera panning, tilting or side dollying to avoid causing motion sickness.
The issues I've outlined above are primarily "Production" problems with Ultra-Wide FOVs, however the extreme format also causes significant "Presentation" problems. These presentation problems come from the Sphere going all-in on creating such a large, extremely wide-angle, wrap-around presentation that fills the entire visual field for 17,000 seats. Unfortunately, choosing that "feature" as the top priority requires other important tech aspects of visual presentation like contrast, dynamic range and resolution to be significantly compromised. A key problem is that the wrap-around screen being 165 degrees causes it to illuminate itself nuking the contrast. The sides down near the horizon line are opposite and shining directly at each other. Another significant issue is that it's almost impossible to shoot or present real-world camera content able to fill the entire 165 degree Sphere screen with a single natural image. As near as I could tell, the entire Postcards from Earth movie doesn't contain even a single full-screen frame that was shot with one camera. It's all CGI with occasional real-world camera shots composited into small frames within the wrap-around CGI field. This is because it's incredibly challenging (if not entirely impossible) to photograph a single image that wide and tall while keeping the perspective from being severely distorted. During the "Planet Earth"-type scenes, the director clearly had to go to great effort to keep any real-world object with straight lines from getting too big. On top of the significant cinematic, compositional and tech issues, the content of Postcards from the Earth is also weak. The story was trite, shop-worn and heavy-handed. The acting, music, cinematography, etc was overall weak - basically what I'd call "pretty good for a video game cut scene but certainly not AAA cinema grade."
In terms of nice things to say... well, the audio presentation wasn't bad. By which I mean, it wasn't great but it was impressively good for that huge of a space dominated by a massive non-parabolic reflector. Basically, the massive size and unusual shape of the space make it extremely challenging to provide a decent audio field to the majority of seats. IMHO, the audio engineering team over-achieved in the degree to which they're able to address many of those challenges. There are a huge number of tuned speakers hidden behind the acoustically semi-transparent screen driven by a lot of DSP power. Very expensive and technically quite difficult. Unfortunately, the resulting audio - while technically impressive given the significant constraints, still isn't nearly as good as a well-tuned flagship Dolby Atmos, THX-certified theater in Hollywood or Manhattan. Another unfortunate aspect is the perforations in the screen required to enable the audio transparency further reduce the screen's ability to generate peak nits of brightness.
If you want to experience today's highest fidelity theatrical imagery for cinematic storytelling, the Sphere isn't it. Sadly, it's not even close (which makes the >$100 price for a bad movie, presented poorly especially egregious). The best you can experience today is visiting one of the 31 real IMAX cinemas (out of 1700 IMAX branded screens (aka "LieMAX" screens)) but only when they are showing a movie A) Distributed in the full 15 perf / 70mm 2D IMAX format, and which was B) Specifically shot to utilize the full 1.43:1 aspect ratio of the full IMAX format. Unfortunately, that's a small minority of what's shown on those 31 screens. Most films shown on IMAX screens weren't really shot specifically for full 1.43 IMAX format (which is super tall compared to normal cinema aspect), so they're just open gate (unmasked) versions of films primarily framed and lit for typical wide format exhibition (like 2.39:1). Also, avoid anything shown in 3D because the 3D projection process (whether IMAX or not) always significantly reduces brightness, contrast and resolution vs 2D projection.
Video excerpt from Planet Earth series:https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0gy5b6x
text BBC coverage in non New Yorker style:https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20231130-the-scientists-flying-with-rare-birds
All of the Planet Earth series is worth watching, if a bit depressing sometimes IMHO, the making of bits at the end of most episodes is informative as well.
When Bluray was brand spanking new, one of the 'must get' discs for your new player and fancy TV was the Planet Earth documentary. There are plenty of plants and animal scenes that can reproduce this diversity of color and texture these days.
Planet Earth has an episode on it. Some of the greatest TV ever
Depends on the movie I guess. Planet Earth 2 is a jaw-dropping experience on even an average UHD-1 tv (and it's not ALL about the HDR, I've tried turning it off). Distinctly more impressive than Planet Earth 1 (FullHD only).
It's a real shame that the same store that sold Blu-Ray players didn't have it and I had to pirate it (and also skip buying the player).
Watched it, loved it as with the entire Planet Earth series. I believed I felt really emotional in a couple of the episodes.
Obviously not every behaviour can be captured in one take exactly in the way that will make an interesting film documentary. This is not some revelation.
As long as the edited footage represents something that could plausibly (though maybe rarely) happen I see no issue.
Personally I am happy to sit through a "drier" documentary if it is well made. But Planet Earth and the like are greatest hits type documentaries, designed to show the exceptional events and behaviours.
Years ago I found a copy of "The Dark Side of Planet Earth", a copy of the first episode to the Original Planet Earth series overlaid with the album. Whether intentional or not, the phenomena when a lyric or chord syncs up with the action on the screen is incredibly cool and can change the vibe. There's gotta be a pareidolia like term for finding audio sync ups.
Near the opening the camera is panning over some polar bear cubs finally leaving hibernation. In the opening show, this is a playful upbeat moment that makes the scene look like the cubs are playing. However with Dark Side, the scene changes to some intense life or death situation as like the cubs are at risk of falling off a cliff in an attempt to get to their mother.
"Money" starts right as B-roll of Spring is in full bloom; "Us and Them"'s line 'up and down' corresponds to shots of a great white shark jumping and falling to catch a seal; and a lot of the general b-roll syncs up with instrumental pieces.
...I think I'll watch it again tonight for fun :D
This issue is fairly significant for me.
I approach it with words using the idea that everyone has the foreknowledge of the Merriam Webster dictionary definition of the words they choose to say in conversation... and something often taken for granted when it shouldn't be.
I know what I mean when I'm explaining things - the definition of the word in context, with some Grammer etc.
What is being interpreted tho? What thoughts come to your mind when I type "Planet Earth" and you read it? Whenever I see the words Planet Earth I recall a memory of an HD DVD BBC Documentary titled "Planet Earth" sitting on the lowest shelf on the endcap display at my local Best Buy - I noticed that many years ago and I've told a few people that, so now it's likely my forever. Lowkey nostalgic almost.
Say I'm having a conversation with a friend that shows a headline about "Planet Earth Be Doomed" how could they ever anticipate my nostalgic correlation with that headline? Am I actually listening if I finish an entire conversation while reliving a childhood trip to best buy?
This only seems like a tangent - knowledge and truth are exactly the same.
I know what I know. I know what I expect you to know. I know what I'm trying to convey and so I use words I know the definition of and feel appropriate in the moment, sometimes I even try my best.
I never know how someone will react/respond/understand.
I would love to hear David Attenborough's voice training VALL-E so that we can forever narrate "planet earth" like tv shows with his voice.
It's a worldwide thing. An urbanized population does not care about nature. At all. Modern life is almost fully abstracted away from it, and it seems fine to destroy it for as long as our delicate lifestyle remains intact.
Every once in a while, we watch a documentary like Planet Earth. It inspires even the most cynical stoic. And we feel terrible about our negative role.
But the next day we go on as usual. And as soon as a tiny thing is asked of us to better the course, we resist like a maniac.
Anything by Adam Curtis. Is he right? Is he wrong? What is going on? He makes some strong arguments at a system-level and of an interdisciplinary nature that really make you think. Despite how people like to write him off, he is likely not too far off the mark most of the time.
Samsara and its kin are engrossing, if not quite stressful. They show you how insane humanity is in rather raw form.
The BBC's Blue Planet, Planet Earth, and Life series are masterclasses in ecological storytelling.
Exit Through the Gift Shop is about as subversively hilarious as you can get.
I'll need to look it up later, but there's a really good documentary about the people who still hand-make Steinway pianos in New York.
I think there's a series called The Planets (?) that covered a lot of the various probes that were sent out.
There's some documentary about the various moon programs, covering Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, etc. It was a series. I can't remember the name or immediately find the one I am thinking of.
There's been a lot of fascinating animal documentaries I have lost track of.
"The Social Dilemma", what a great documentary showing how ad business, recommendations, attention grabbing works in social networks and how it impacts society, it basically shows "how sausage is made" and how it impacts the whole world and the risks associated with it https://www.imdb.com/title/tt11464826/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0
"Planet Earth II", breathtaking documentary about animal life on earth with extraordinary scenes https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5491994/?ref_=rt_li_tt
"Inside Job", documentary about 2008 crisis, masterpiece, narrated by Matt Damon. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1645089/
"The Last Dance", I'm not a fan of basketball, it's a doc about Michael Jordan, one of the best docs I've seen, sounds boring but you can't wait to watch the next episode, recommended even if you don't watch sports like me, it's about extraordinary person/athlete and what it takes to be GOAT https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8420184/?ref_=rt_li_tt
"Zero Days", great doc about stuxnet exploit https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5446858/?ref_=rt_li_tt
"Human", what it is to be a human from different perspectives https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3327994/?ref_=rt_li_tt
"Over the Limit", documentary about olympic gymnastic and shows the price of winning at any cost. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8184202/?ref_=rt_li_tt
"Life Story", beautiful doc about animals, great scenes https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4150884/?ref_=rt_li_tt
"Planet Earth", extraordinary scenes of animals lives https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0795176/?ref_=rt_li_tt
"Blue Planet II", like Planet Earth but in water https://www.imdb.com/title/tt6769208/?ref_=rt_li_tt
"Cosmos", doc about cosmos, nature of the world etc, very good https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2395695/?ref_=rt_li_tt
"The Tinder Swindler", "Posing as a wealthy, jet-setting diamond mogul, he wooed women online, then conned them out of millions of dollars." Surprisingly good https://www.imdb.com/title/tt14992922/?ref_=rt_li_tt
"The Farthest", about first human made object leaving our Solar system https://www.imdb.com/title/tt6223974/?ref_=rt_li_tt
"Our Planet", https://www.imdb.com/title/tt9253866/?ref_=rt_li_tt
"Cartel land" https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4126304/?ref_=rt_li_tt
Our 3.5 YO doesn’t really have any device time (though she likes playing with a calculator, and typing on an neo alphasmart), and she absolutely loves reading. But we recently introduced nature documentaries (blue planet, planet earth). And yup! She throws little tantrums at the end. We’re all super engaged as we watch them together, and I think they’re a good supplement to her kid encyclopedias and stuff. The tantrum are less severe if I preface the viewing with, “when this is done, we’re going to turn it off and do x.” It helps to prepare her for what to expect, rather than be surprised by “no more!”
It's pretty funny actually, history is - it turns out - often more incredible than what you would consider a really bad plot point ("naaaaah c'mon that could never happen!"). And many organisms on Earth exceed even really poor middle-grade-school-level-b-movies.
As a favorite example, the cordyceps fungus which infect the host and affect the behavior of the host to more easily spread the fungus (eg climb higher before dying). Immortalized via BBC Planet Earth, and PE inspiring the game The Last of Us (filming as a series for HBO).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cordyceps
Dogs are very smart. The wild ones, even more so.
Some of us may remember this episode of Sir David Attenborough's Planet Earth: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0036vfk
The dogs look like a trained commando squad.
This gives you an idea why everyone on the savannah is scared of a Wild Dog pack.
The only reason researchers and documentary makers don't perfectly hide themselves is due to how expensive and limited technology is (in Planet Earth they had to setup a hidden blind and stake out an area for months to get the proper footage undetected which is incredibly expensive to do). I imagine if you're a space-faring race capable of visiting planets on a whim, hiding yourself from rather primitive civilizations is trivial, so why wouldn't they?
I'll go out on a limb here and defend TV: I think this is a somewhat-outdated view of television.
Modern television isn't just The Big Bang Theory anymore. The line between cinema and television is quickly blurring, with television shows like Chernobyl that are essentially very long films. Even "regular television" can be incredibly enlightening, with shows like Planet Earth exposing us to parts of our own world we might never see otherwise and our imagination might not even do justice!
And much like cinema, sure the experience itself is somewhat isolating in that you're trying to pay attention to it and not converse with those around you. But what's beneficial about some television shows are the emotions they inspire, the conversation they generate after, the fantastical thoughts that come later while you process what you saw.
Sure, garbage exists on television in the same way that pulp fiction (i.e. low-quality literature) never really died out. But I don't think it's fair to dismiss the medium any more than it's fair to dismiss film or literature.
In no particular order:
- Inside Job - https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1645089/
- Planet Earth - https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0795176/
- Restrepo - https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1559549/
- The Tillman Story - https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1568334/
- Chernobyl (??) - https://www.imdb.com/title/tt7366338/
- Hoaxed - https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8991264/
I have watched Planet Earth in 4K (Real 4K not Netflix "4K"). on my new Home Cinema and it's the most beautiful digital content I have ever witnessed. Absolutely incredible.
Christina Hunger has the ability to ask her dog questions and it goes to press a button that represents the idea it wants to reply with. That button plays an English word through a speaker for Christina. She's a speech pathologist on Instagram and has a website for it. The dog learns word association in the same way babies do.
Those videos are on Instagram, not buried. I'm fairly sure any breakthroughs will make it to a Planet Earth documentary and we'll feel sad about it for a while then go buy beef from the shops anyway.
Fundamentally a documentary is trying to sell a narrative using documentary cinematic style.
Now sometimes this is mostly benign or even "good." Such as detailing an event in a in-depth matter-of-fact style. Works such as the early Planet Earth series are simply trying to capture and show the wonder of life around the planet! And maybe hopefully encourage you to try and protect them as a secondary upshot. As time has gone on, they've produced works are that much more blatant with their "save the environment" messaging.
However, most of the most popular ones have a significant editorial bias. Heck, one of the first landmark pieces, Nanook of the North, was almost completely fabricated! Often quite easy to spot as well. Some are very up front about their bias, such as Michael Moore's work. Some less so, such as the editorial narrative in features like Forks over Knives or Blackfish. And some it's quite subtle. The recent Making of a Murderer comes to mind where certain facts weren't presented and it's framed in a very sympathetic light towards the defendants. Sure they have a lot of true facts within them. And often you learn quite a bit! But they are often presented in a particular fashion or certain points are talked up while others are ignored or not presented.
It's an unfortunate thing, but even the most innocuous of documentaries have some small bias. And it's up to the user to try and understand how much is narrative editorializing and how much is "truth." It's all part of making the documentary feel more true and tap into our need for a strong narrative arc via romanticizing the story we see unfold.
We pay the licence fee to fund the BBC. They make some amazing documentaries (Planet Earth, Blue Planet etc). They also have radio stations, all advert free. Being advert free is rare these days.
I haven't yet heard any voice synthesis that isn't buried deep in the uncanny valley. It's exceedingly creepy. A huge number of Amazon Prime educational/documentary videos use synthetic voices that are good enough that I have to listen for a couple minutes to be sure they're fake, but the whole time it's unnerving. I have no doubt that they'll nail it soon (and maybe Replica already has).
Despite any misgivings, I really hope David Attenborough gives permission to replicate his voice in perpetuity. I want to hear him narrating Planet Earth forever.
What about documentaries like Planet Earth? Would find it hard to believe that a book could replace that.
TV is fine in moderation.
Planet Earth is an example of the medium used well I think - amazing footage of reality that would be very expensive, time consuming and difficult to observe first hand, presented with fairly light editorializing.
I personally haven't got the same value from TV fiction. Mad Men is good example - I watched it because it was widely praised and I got somewhat caught up in wanting to know what happened next but in retrospect I really don't feel I got anything much out of it and I would like those hours of my life back. I feel the same about almost everything I watched while I had a Netflix subscription.
I've got nothing against pure entertainment. I've found Game of Thrones entertaining and will likely watch the final season with my fiancé. I continue to watch the occasional popcorn movie at the cinema. There's very little TV and only a few movies that feel they rise beyond entertainment to something like literature however.
If you get value out of TV and movies I've got no problem with that. As someone who used to watch a lot of both and now feels that was largely a waste of my time though I just no longer see much value there.
I could name far more!
Cosmos? Planet Earth? Or what about the myriad of documentaries you can find? Or shows about history?
I suppose this also depends on if you think fiction betters you as a person (I don't think the medium you receive it in matters all that much; so I don't think you need to read a thick russian novel). If you don't; I guess I just fundamentally disagree with you, and in a way, I almost feel sad on your behalf. Almost all of human morals and values, not to mention deep life lessons, have historically been taught through fiction. If you do, then obviously there's a lot of EXCELLENT fiction on TV, shows like Breaking Bad, or Mad Men. Or recent shows like Barry. Those shows rival even large novels in the amount of time it takes to consume them and what they can say, and they even have the advantage of being able to take advantage of music and filmography to set moods and make points that books cannot (books of course also have their own set of advantage, I'm not trashing them)
I've noticed Netflix stuttering on Edge too. I think there is a combination of web player and compression issues happening.
The quality is really good on some titles, like the latest F1 docu-series. Others have terrible quality, like the original planet earth. Lots of stuttering and compression artifacts.
Like another commenter somewhere, I'd be happy with smooth, artifact free 1080p over 4k any day.
There are a wide range of things that are considered deserts and organisms that live within them. They aren't just empty acres of sand. I'd recommend the Planet Earth episode about deserts to help gain a little appreciation without having to visit one.
They occur naturally and life has adapted to them. From a conservation standpoint that's enough reason for me to keep them around.
How did I know it was George Monbiot before even opening it... Just watch the last episode of Planet Earth season 2 ffs and stop whining.
The BBC's Planet Earth series is fantastic. Reminds me of Shakespeare: "There are more things in heaven and earth then are dreamt of your in philosophy"... Makes you really appreciate the beauty on this planet.
Also - a bit of a curveball answer: I really like Documentary Now! (on Netflix). They are parodies of really well known documentaries. So I ended up watching the parody and then looking for the source material on which it was based. I realized that my wife (art major) knew almost all the original documentaries and I knew almost none (engineer...)
EDIT: Wikipedia has the mapping of parody->original : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_Now!
> How many whales are there on earth? How many lions? 50,000 at most. You could put a bullet in the head of every lion on earth tomorrow and it would be a drop in the ocean compared to the hundreds of millions of farm animals that would be killed _on that same day_. And the lions at least wouldn’t have spent their lives packed 10 to a square foot in a barn dying to sickness.
I can't really keep repeatedly refuting generalizations like this. Please re-read the emphasis I've been placing on the sorts of facilities I'm defending.
> There are some incredible, highly regarded documentaries (planet earth, blue planet) that do far more for educating people about animals than viewing that animal in a cage ever can. If zoos actually created any sort of compassion in visitors for animals then we wouldn’t be having this argument — all they create is fascination in a select few species we’ve deemed to be interesting enough, and what use is that to the animals being tortured on a scale millions of times greater.
They've done much more than what you've described. Please re-read my post.
Here's a great start since I'm principally focusing on one facility which can be a model for others, in case you need a particular reference: https://nationalzoo.si.edu/conservation
If you can, I'd encourage you to read it with an open mind.
You’re ignoring my point. Every single day the average person will actively benefit from the direct, quantifiable harm of individuals animals — your lunch, your dinner, there’s probably at least one animal’s suffering associated with it. Every year tens of billions of animals are slaughtered after spending their lives in inhumane conditions.
How many whales are there on earth? How many lions? 50,000 at most. You could put a bullet in the head of every lion on earth tomorrow and it would be a drop in the ocean compared to the hundreds of millions of farm animals that would be killed _on that same day_. And the lions at least wouldn’t have spent their lives packed 10 to a square foot in a barn dying to sickness.
There are some incredible, highly regarded documentaries (planet earth, blue planet) that do far more for educating people about animals than viewing that animal in a cage ever can. If zoos actually created any sort of compassion in visitors for animals then we wouldn’t be having this argument — all they create is fascination in a select few species we’ve deemed to be interesting enough, and what use is that to the animals being tortured on a scale millions of times greater.
Exotic animals are just a tool used to support an entire species cognitive dissonance.
Entairtainment content is much worse then commercials. If PowerRangers are stupid for you, to me all movies and shows are as stupid as PowerRangers, as all of them use fake character building to touch someone's heart (mom got cancer, dad left, girlfriend cheating) they include 'all of the above' to touch as much of the audience as possible, only small part are passive and cold to the lure reach, most are lured in and hooked and are now users of the entairtainment industry. Facebook (friend news) and real news are no beter then this, not even sports are better then this nowdays, before sports were about sport now they use the same techniques as fiction novels and movies do, they build character, they show life of Shaqile Oneal what he does when he doesn't play for instance charity donations, community reach etc, they make stars out of players and everyone has their favorite, muslims like Ronaldo cuz he been to a mosque, jews like Messi cuz, well whatever u get the point, noone would watch South American volleyball or basketball team or Saudi Arabian football league because why, yes u guessed it, you don't know anyone there, there are no characters, only those people there know the players so they watch them. And what happens after the game, an hour of talk "player did this he did that, couach did this did that, should have done that and this and instead now we have this, he gets what he asked for, need a better coach" or whatever, then you listen to those people analyze the game to get you thinking, get your thoughts circling around the same thing, then you go to a bar with your friends order a beer and repeat the same thing those people on tv said, or you throw in your own opinion, cuz who needs those stupid analyzers on tv when you know better, Zlatan Ibrahimovic yey, no I really like that guy as a dude, I could care less about his abilities, I mean he's the new Chuck Norris, he hurt his knees went to a doctor and the doctors wanted to study him because of how good of a shape his knees were haha... anyway, cocky dude. But he's real, noone made him out like that, he made his own character. It's because we do in real life remember characters as we perceive them with values we recognize, because the ones we don't recognize we just havent learned yet, but the problem with fake characters is that they are fake, and people who watch more then 8 hours a day of tv shows or sports really get immersed into those characters that it's a disease, it's an addiction that hasn't been diagnosed yet, Tupac said he didn't promote Thug Life he diagnosed it, he really did. If average US citizen watches 8 hours a day of TV, that means that on the extreme ends of this line there's a dude who watches 0 hours of TV, I saw a guy comment here he don't watch TV, but then this also means that there's that dude who watches 16 horus a day, everything over 2hrs a day is a disease, if you don't know how to select what you watch, and I do mean if you don't watch 'Life of Birds' "Planet Earth" and other shows narrated by David Attenborough you are being dummbed down by occupying your mind with thoughts of the round ball, players, fake characters, made up stories that touch your heart and soul, you're an addict of a storyline and the only place you actually think is while taking a shit on the toilet because there is no TV there, but sometimes even there you bring your cell phone or a news paper and out of a 100% of the day you turn the thinking part of the brain on for 0% and now it's just repetitious things like, today they scored 75, tomorrow 65, tomorrow 32, fauls 32, etc, when you ask a person what you think about so and so, most will not actually 'think' but rather will just pull out an already thought-out thought they had prepared earlier when they were sitting on the toilet thinking, as when you watch tv you don't really think, you just emotionaly invest yourself and your memory to those characters, unless you can rise above this and tune it out , watching static on tv, or a turned off tv, or better yet wathing a blank wall of your house is much healthier than watching tv if you do not choose what to watch, and i do mean documentaries about knowledge that is good and not knowledge how to rob a bank and brew coke, i mean either history biology sciences religion sociology etc etc, all other is a waiste of life and of time. It's really bad when people start to tell me about what they saw on TV, sports or Turkish series, and I'm like if I wanted to waste my time I'd watch it myself, you don't have to advertise it for me. So no, ads are not actually worse then the actual content, ads are just selling product, but also using the same techique, character building, where they have cute fuzzy little animals or hearts or baby faces on toilet paper, dude why is there a baby on my toilet paper plastic wrapper/bag/container, is it because the toilet paper is soft and babies cheeks are also soft, or is it because the paper is soft enough for a babies soft butt, idk, but this is just so it's cute and you buy it, i mean you can't really sell toilet paper with Hitler's face on it now can you. So no, propaganda is in the movies and the entairtainment, only you don't see it, all of these things are there put in place to take away your thinking time of the day where you could be thinking smart thoughts, as Einstein did in his 'thinking room', they lure you in to think about them, and to subscribe for 5.99 Nba APP, and even if you don't , yo might think they don't get nothing from me, yes they do, you go and tell your family about sports movies and then they buy it, your friends buy it, the whole world is hooked. As my grandmother used to say, 'you can't sit on two chairs with one ass' you can either study or go to bar, not both at the same time, but while you watch tv you're not reading about "light, frequency, electromagnetism, synesthesia, fungi" idk universe? there are many things we don't know and ahvent learned but we settle for some dudes rolling a circular round ball or throwing it and we sit there brain dead and stare at the idiot box and when someone says idiot box we say no tv doesn't make you stupider, no it just makes you a smart idiot who could be talking to his daughter but rather instead watches tv where there is a fake dad talking to his fake daughter and you cry inside, it's all a trick to separate you from family, and while you might think watching tv together is a form of communication, no communication happens while watching some other people do their thing while you don't do anything you just watch, all you do is watch and you don't do anything, people are zombies. Thats why i turned off facebook and I'm here now on Hacker news as there is smart educational content here and not just gossip, i have to stop writing now my blood pressure is climbing. Try to stay away from TV for a few days, you'll get the same reaction as trying to stay away from cigarettes, and mind you, nicotine exits the blood stream fairly quickly so on the third day all there is is the psychological addiction as the physical nicotine is long gone. habbits are very powerful and whats inertia, resistance to change. Change dude, dont watch TV don't let them make u a sucker, you're not a sucker are you, you are if you wanna be, don't be, read a book, not a fiction book, book of knowledge, here'a an author Al Ghazali, go see what he did. Iron is not a native element of Earth, it's formed in stars much hotter then our Sun, Sun is not hot enough to create the element, so it descended down to earth and now it's here, and we make useful things from it and there's hemoglobin too. Turn the TV off.
I mean, complaining about the color realism of a film with gigantic monster dinosaurs (whose coloration we may never know to begin with) seems a bit silly. Movies are not documentaries. I'd buy in a bit more for things like the BBC's 'Planet Earth' needing color realism, but even then it's ok to dramatize things.
Every Frame a Painting goes over Michael Bay's work and includes some color content he uses and WHY: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2THVvshvq0Q
I believe the other ants recognize that the individual is infected and forcibly dispel her from the colony, which is a defense mechanism the ants likely evolved. At least that's what's portrayed in the Planet Earth documentary, which spends a few minutes focusing on this fungus. The fungus could have evolved to be more sneaky so the ants wouldn't recognize the infection until it was too late, but I imagine it's easier to just have the ant go somewhere high up instead.
It certainly can look like a co-evolved compromise, though it formed through two competing species. I think what you're getting at is the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Queen_hypothesis
Kids can always watch documentaries like Planet Earth.
The making-ofs are incredible and worth watching. For one piece of footage, the camera guy was in a bird hide for weeks on end, waiting. I can't imagine the boredom! In another, they used a hot air balloon. And from a technical perspective, the bit where they're shooting sharks in super slow mo is interesting. All of those are on the Planet Earth 1 DVD box set - I'm sure there are digital options around.
It is a little off-putting, but I think it certainly has its place in educating and entertaining people about wildlife.
BBC's Hidden Kingdoms comes to mind, where they make no illusions about the fact that you are watching a film not a camera left out in the woods for ten days.
In fact, after each episode they double down and re-use all their work by showing you just how they got the shots and set up all the scenes.
That, and I think Planet Earth has occasionally been guilty of what you're talking about, but personally I've never felt insulted, more like impressed they managed to make a palatable narrative out of a bunch of wildlife scenes.
Every Planet Earth episode has a mini-"making of" at the end of it which usually shows how shots were acquired.
That wasn't quite as mind blowing as I was expecting. I guess after working on a lot of video projects I can sense when documentaries are taking a narrative license or using music and sound effects to enhance the scene, so that sort of thing isn't shocking to me. Planet Earth is still going out to remote locations to get some pretty amazing shots, rather than doing the work on one of these game farms or adding CGI. As long as they aren't interfering with nature while they do the work I appreciate their effort.
And yet, have you seen the 4k content out there? Breaking Bad was awesome, but is that really better in 4k than, say BSG or Planet Earth? I bought a 4k TV to use as a monitor several months back and started researching content - Most of it is eyebrow-raising, to say the least. I remember when 720/1080 were first introduced, there was an expected dearth of content, but at least what was out there was worth high-def (flyovers of tourist destinations, PBS nature documentaries, etc). For example - Here's some of Netflix's offerings in 4k:
Series: House of Cards Marco Polo Breaking Bad The Blacklist
Movies and Documentaries Smurfs 2 Philadelphia Jerry Macguire Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon Oceans (documentary) Forests (documentary) Flowers (documentary)
Edit:formatting
Planet Earth is by far the best nature documentary I've ever seen. I'd recommend it to anyone who's yet to see it.
I'm 22 (close enough to under 21), and my opinion on buying things depends on the type of media.
I buy plenty of games on Steam (usually during sales) & the Humble Bundles. They are a cheap, legitimate way for me to play a large array of games, and I'm more than happy to support the developers.
For books, I have a Kindle and tend to pirate ebook copies of books I own already in physical form. I'll also pirate audiobooks & ebooks on occasion if I can. Not a a big fan of audible & amazon DRM.
For music, I have a Spotify Premium account and listen to the vast majority of my music from there. I have a big back-catalog of pirated music from before I got my Spotify account. I have a handful of CDs that I bought as a child, but mostly just pirated since the dawn of broadband internet.
For TV Shows, I have a Netflix Account & Amazon Prime account. I also pay for Verizon FiOS cable, and get HBO/Showtime. I use HBO Go and whatever the Showtime app is called to watch those shows. I sometimes pirate episodes of shows I watch if I happen to miss watching them, can't see them on Hulu, or didn't record for whatever reason.
For movies, I buy Blu-Rays only on occasions where I want the HD experience. Think concert Blu-Rays and things like Planet Earth or 2001: A Space Odyssey. Like I said, Netflix/Amazon Prime/HBO/Showtime get me through a lot of movies. If I can't find them there, I'll pirate them.
The reason I subscribe to these things and still pirate is basically a lack of $$. The services I pay for are a relatively cheap way to see a lot of content, and I would probably not go out and buy more DVDs/CDs/games if I couldn't subscribe to these or get great deals on Steam.
I do, however, intend to purchase far more content when my bills aren't so overwhelming. I also cannot forsee myself encouraging my kids someday to pirate material. I feel like I'd be instilling a value into them that I'm not particularly proud of, and without a doubt if they can say "but dad does it!" it'll be hard to explain to them why they should not.
I have one of those TVs that does a good job at extrapolating frames (Samsung 7000 led) and when you turn that functionality on, it does make everything look more 'fake'.
It makes movies feel more like theater than cinema. When I first got the TV, I really noticed the makeup and excessive hairspray on men a lot. Also, the props in sci-fi movies looked like they were foam or plastic (since that is what they actually are). Iron Man's costume, for example, looked very plasticy. I don't know why that is. Our brain must be filling up the missing frames of 24fps such that everything looks more real.
It only took a week or two to get used to it and now I mostly don't notice it anymore and actually prefer the crisper looking images. It's especially great for documentaries such as Planet Earth where everything is more life like.
I know some people have difficulty getting used to it because the guy who sold me the TV told me he was getting some returns with complains of things looking fake on the TV.
I disagree with all three of the main points.
First, while the "heart" of Hollywood (whatever that is) may be in its aspiring stars, they have little control over what the executives do. Aspiring actors and directors know that there are many others waiting to take their role - if they don't agree to the terms (however terrible) there are plenty of others waiting to take their place. Hollywood is a monopsony. They are a cartel whose absolute control of the market makes it more difficult for "the heart and soul of Hollywood" to pursue their dreams. Breaking up the Hollywood cartel would make things easier for aspiring actors and directors.
Second, while "war may rarely be the solution", that doesn't mean that there is no place for war. If the other side is willing to do whatever it takes to destroy you, you have to fight back or be destroyed. SOPA/PIPA showed that music and movie industry have absolutely no sympathy for legitimate internet users. If it comes down to a choice between accepting the SOPA/PIPA and fighting the media industry with every tool at my disposal, I'll choose to fight any day of the week.
Finally, Ben Parr brings out the "what about the masterpieces?" argument. He misses the point that masterpieces like Schindler's List and Planet Earth exist despite Hollywood, not because of it. The movie industries are not interested in taking "unnecessary risks" on a movie that may turn into the next Citizen Kane. Remember, "masterpiece" movies are not often popular or profitable. It's much safer for studios to fund yet another proven, moneymaking sequel. Breaking up the Hollywood cartel would allow those with higher tastes for risk to enter the movie funding business, making it easier for future masterpieces to gain funding.
There's a beautiful segment in planet earth about this. I believe its the jungle episode from season 1.
This is tangential but Attenborough's narration of Planet Earth was awful. He contradicted himself with his superlatives every other episode.
Yes. Incredible. With Cosmos, Carl Sagan opened my mind up to the incredible wonders of space and what's out there a few years ago. It's up there with Planet Earth on the scale of seriously remarkable television series. Seeing this continue with none other than Ann Druyan and Steven Soter themselves gets a resounding hell yeah from me.
If you haven't watched Cosmos already, I highly, highly suggest it. Start with Episode 1: http://www.hulu.com/watch/63317/cosmos-the-shores-of-the-cosmic-ocean#s-p3-so-i0
A few of my favourite docs:
Spellbound: story about kids entering a spelling bee - great film about the fabric of America Fog of War: Former Sec of Defence talking about war Capitalism- a love story: humorous look at our economic system Planet Earth: Breathtaking view of our environment
"Enron - The Smartest Guys in the Room" seconded! It is by far my most favourite documentary.
In addition, I like the following documentaries:
- "Client 9: The Rise and Fall of Eliot Spitzer" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1638362/
- "Planet Earth" IMHO one of BBC's best productions with some of the most amazing nature shots ever (e.g., a [presumably stratospheric] shot that looks like fog or fire but is really a swarm of flies) http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0795176/
- BBC has also two of the best documentary series regarding the second world war: "The World at War" (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0071075/) and "The Nazis: A Warning from History" (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0207907/)
- Errol Morris' "The Thin Blue Line" (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0096257/) and "The Fog of War" (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0317910/)
> What exactly makes watching a thoughtful, well-crafted drama (for instance, The Wire) on television any less worthy than reading a good back or going to watch a play?
Great question. A few points:
1. A play or movie has a start and end time that is reasonably compressed - you watch Memento or Gattaca, it takes you two hours, you sit and think about it afterwards for a while, and it's done. A high quality program will run for many seasons, taking 30 minutes to an hour of your life times X weeks for however long. Also, being not as compressed, the average quality tends to be lower (with some exceptions of very good programming, though it's rare).
2. Very easy to just keep watching after the high quality program ends, watching the next thing that comes on. Very, very easy to do that. My housemate last year had a TV hooked to a DVD player and Nintendo Wii for parties, but no channels. I did buy him a box set of Planet Earth for his birthday after seeing some of it at a friend's house. But it's like, put on the DVD, watch it, put it away, done. No getting sucked in.
3. Garbage books are no good either - I tend to read books that give me a perspective on another culture (Koda Rohan, Eiji Yoshikawa, or Genji for Japan, for instance), or read business books, technical books, history, economics, finance, etc. I'd classify a lot of fiction as similarly mindlessly-distracting-without-growth too. That's fine for what it is, but I'd rather get the enjoyment while also developing as a person, asking myself tough questions, getting more in touch with another culture, gaining expertise, and so on.
But sure, there's some good TV. I used to go do cardio at the gym whenever a sports match was on that I wanted to watch, for instance, because they had a bunch of TVs, and I'd go during the fifth inning or halftime and watch the end of the game. I might buy a boxed set of DVDs and have a weekend marathon at my place sometime if a show is really good, insightful, and develops the character.
Still, I don't watch television regularly because I think I'll have a healthier, happier, more productive life where I reach more of my goals if it's not part of my life. Perhaps some people have knee jerk anti-TV reactions as a signaling mechanism that they're "unplugged", but that's not it in my case. Some TV is really cool. I watched some Top Gear at one of my English friend's flats in London, and it's just really enjoyable. The question was still - wait, is this what I should be doing with my time? Couldn't I be enjoying myself while also learning, or producing something, or connecting more deeply with someone I like? It's a keenly thought out thing that I made a conscious decision about a long time, but I'm not one of those horrible anti-TV preachy people. If it serves a role in a person's life and they're happy with its effect, then it's a good thing for them.
I don't know many documentaries (unfortunately), but have you watched the "Planet Earth" series by the BBC? I guess one day movies like that will be priceless, when the things they show don't exist anymore (hope it'll never come to that). But seriously, some scenes are just incredible, I don't know how they did it (finding certain animals doing certain things, they must have had infinite patience).