For all you nature lovers.
Sir David Attenborough is presenting a look at our own Islands. Co- produced with the RSPB (much filming was taken on their reserves) WWF and the National trust.
Starting 7pm Sunday 12th March.
This took many years to make and will hopefully give people the chance to see what 'nature and beauty' we have on our own doorstep.
I thought there was a existing thread about this?
Should be very good, amazing photography these days esp' on HD TV, always great to see wildlife and places around the country.
The 'other thread' is about the BBC not showing one episode (which is false information).
Lovely 🙂
I love the filming on these programs. I just hope they don’t turn into a hypocritical climate change preaching fest
Chrismac - although that isn't really allowed. These programmes are trying to reach even people who may not normally care about the environment around them, hopefully it will spark an interest, especially in children. For it is the children who will be in control of natures destiny in a few years time.
Even our dreadful neighbours got excited a few years ago when they discovered a hedgehog in their front garden.
Set to record but hoping there's a UHD version on iPlayer.
Chrismac - in what way do you mean hypocritical? Unfortunately, the UK is one of the world’s most nature depleted countries in the world with once common words for our flora & fauna falling out of common usage as people get more and more disconnected from nature. Looking at what we do have (or even had?) yet sticking heads in the sand about what is driving the loss of wildlife is hugely irresponsible.
Besides, it’s not just climate change but farming methods, pollution into waterways, expansion of the urban resulting in isolated colonies of wildlife which can’t sustain themselves etc etc
But to pander to the anti-climate change brigade, it looks like the BBC have relegated the final episode to IPlayer.
But to pander to the anti-climate change brigade, it looks like the BBC have relegated the final episode to IPlayer.
As already mentioned there is another thread about that, and it's been shown to be incorrect: it was not "relegated to iPlayer" to appease the anti-climate change brigade, it was commissioned for and always intended for iPlayer
I’ve not seen the other thread, but if that’s the case, then I stand corrected.
it was commissioned for and always intended for iPlayer
Yeah the BBC have been very clear about that:
"We acquired a separate film for iPlayer from the RSPB, WWF and Silverback Films about people working to preserve and restore the biodiversity of the British Isles."
So produced by exactly the same company as Wild Isles, Silverback Films, and financially supported by exactly the same two charities, RSPB and WWF.
The obvious question to ask is, why is a film required by the BBC about people working to preserve and restore the biodiversity of the British Isles not going to be broadcasted, and will only be available to a more restricted audience?
There is obviously an answer to that question but as far as I am aware despite vehemently denying they have been put under pressure the BBC hasn't given any clues to what it might be.
It seems to me that the topic matter is precisely something which should reach a wider audience. And after all the BBC's mission is defined by a Royal Charter: to act in the public interest, serving all audiences through the provision of impartial, high-quality and distinctive output and services which inform, educate and entertain.
The BBC could help to defuse the row concerning why they are not broadcasting the film which they have apparently paid for by being more vocal for the reasons.
The obvious question to ask is, why is a film required by the BBC about people working to preserve and restore the biodiversity of the British Isles not going to be broadcasted, and will only be available to a more restricted audience?
it is going to be broadcast.. on the iplayer.
There is going to be a large increase in programmes being commissioned just for the iplayer. It isn't a more restricted audience it's a wider audience
The 20-35 age group is increasingly not watching scheduled TV and getting most, if not all of there viewing from streaming services.
The BBC could help to defuse the row concerning why they are not broadcasting the film which they have apparently paid for by being more vocal for the reasons.
agreed.. its always been an organisation that just takes punches and in several instances really should have fought back much harder. In this instance rubbishing the falsehoods put forward in Guardian article that started this.
it is going to be broadcast.. on the iplayer.
I think broadcasting, apart from a way of sowing seeds, means hitting the airwaves. It is certainly in that context that I was referring to.
And yes of course it is a more restricted audience if it is just iPlayer instead of broadcasting and iPlayer. How can it not be?
Previously declared as a series of six episodes by the #BBC!
If that is genuine then more a case of the BBC lying than a misunderstanding. Which imo is worse than yielding to political pressure.
The Countryfile Magazine article which claims "there are six episodes in total" gives today's date for the first episode so the planning was obviously well in advance when they suddenly decided that there were only five episodes.
Tonight's episode was of course excellent, as you would expect from the BBC's output of programmes of that genre. Plus of course nothing controversial.
I particularly liked how the orca pod had been given a proper gangsta name.... The 27s 😎
Chrismac – in what way do you mean hypocritical?
that we will be lectured on climate change with no sense of irony of the carbon footprint to make this bit of Sunday night entertainment. Take tonight’s episode. 2 years of travel upto the Hebrides to spend 2 months driving around in a powerboat to make 5 minutes of tv.
There is a UHD version and sumptuous.
Take tonight’s episode. 2 years of travel upto the Hebrides to spend 2 months driving around in a powerboat to make 5 minutes of tv.
Shetland Islands are nowhere near the Hebrides.
Is it one of these....
It isn’t a more restricted audience it’s a wider audience
No, because the rest of the series is broadcasted to air and is also on iPlayer.
<div id="post-12753495" class="bbp-reply-header d-flex justify-content-between w-100">
<div class="bbp-reply-author d-flex align-items-center flex-wrap"><span class="bbp-author-name">GavinB</span>
<div class="bbp-author-role">
<div class="">Full Member</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="p-0 loop-item-20 user-id-158 bbp-parent-forum-180317 bbp-parent-topic-12751656 bbp-reply-position-21 odd post-12753495 reply type-reply status-publish hentry">
<div class="bbp-reply-content">Take tonight’s episode. 2 years of travel upto the Hebrides to spend 2 months driving around in a powerboat to make 5 minutes of tv.
Shetland Islands are nowhere near the Hebrides.
</div>
</div>
My mistake but it doesn’t change the point
It's a point but there has to be a balance between whether the environmental impact of making these sorts of films is justified for the exposure that it brings. OK, Orca's eating seals off the Shetlands isn't highlighting the destruction of the planet particularly, but it is at least partly an entertainment and education program and without this sort of footage bringing the crowds in the 'duller' bit where he mentions that we've seen (IDR exactly) 95% of our insect species disappear in the last 50 years due to destruction of habitats doesn't get into the ears of the public. Do the ends justify the means......
I wonder the same when we see footage of for example flash floods - also caused by climate change - where hordes of reporters descend on the areas with their associated carbon footprint. But then it hits home far more than a studio based / few crappy camera phone pics ever will.
that we will be lectured on climate change with no sense of irony of the carbon footprint to make this bit of Sunday night entertainment. Take tonight’s episode. 2 years of travel upto the Hebrides to spend 2 months driving around in a powerboat to make 5 minutes of tv.
But that 5 minutes of fairly spectacular TV will help hook a great many viewers, perhaps ignorant of nature's plight in this country, who will then hopefully take on board some of the more subtle messaging later in the series. Messaging which will hopefully educate and be a call to action for a percentage of them.
On balance I think it's more than worth it and not in the least bit 'hypocritical'. There is of course a carbon footprint to all TV (and in just about everything we do) but it's a powerful tool to raise awareness and hopefully wake more people up to the radical action needed. I think it's easy to underestimate the impact and global reach of anything produced by Attenborough.
A great first episode, the white tailed eagles chasing the poor goose was some of the most dramatic wildlife scenes I've seen on tv, easily matching a lion taking down an antelope on the African plains.
I really hope that the grate British public takes our wildlife to heart and starts ramping up the pressure on the government.
There is a campaign website here https://www.saveourwildisles.org.uk
My mistake but it doesn’t change the point
Your 'point' being that no one can even mention climate change, especially in a programme such as this, if they have a carbon footprint above that of a gnat? Is that your point?
How would you propose to educate and inform a wider audience of the catastrophic effects of climate change without filming it? Six hour-long episodes of David Attenborough just talking to camera might not have much of a draw.
Your ‘point’ being that no one can even mention climate change, especially in a programme such as this, if they have a carbon footprint above that of a gnat? Is that your point?
My point is that you can’t go around telling everyone else that they need to change their lifestyle and habits to protect the planet when your not willing to do the same. Was the carbon footprint generated to make 5 minutes of film about some orcha’s swimming around worth it.
My point is that you can’t go around telling everyone else that they need to change their lifestyle and habits to protect the planet when your not willing to do the same.
Who told you on this programme that you needed to change your lifestyle?
How would you propose you film orcas, white-tailed eagles or similar without travelling to where they live?
It's an entire series filmed within the UK massively reducing the carbon footprint associated with the landmark wildlife programmes we have seen recently. It's exactly these kinds of actions that should be being applauded.
It also means that it puts our lack of action/negative actions into the spotlight so instead of it being either unenlightened/uncaring "foreigners" the issues here are ours and we need to own them. We can't play the white knights telling the world to be better whilst enacting legislation that makes ours worse. That's hypocritical.
My point is that you can’t go around telling everyone else that they need to change their lifestyle and habits to protect the planet when your not willing to do the same. Was the carbon footprint generated to make 5 minutes of film about some orcha’s swimming around worth it.
So, just for clarity, what activities are permitted as non-hypocritical for those concerned about climate change?
Who told you on this programme that you needed to change your lifestyle?
MR Attenborough did when he was telling us it’s all our fault the number of species are falling. I’m sure he is correct in his statement but I’m not sure what he thinks anyone watching can do about it.
@mrhoppy. What actions would you suggest we do that will actually make a difference beyond a bit of virtue signalling and making us all feel good?
Crikey chrismac, can you really not see that educating people about how wonderful nature is, and therefore inspiring them to protect it, is a much bigger win than the relatively low carbon impact of filming it?
If you are that worried about it perhaps don't watch it and just stick to improving your understanding of British geography.
Who do you mean by "we"? I don't particularly advocate individual actions, it's small, the drive needs to come from coordinated strategic actions at a national level. So sensibly, remove the sitting government as soon as possible, they are actively harming the UK environment with their legislation.
But we've seen the impact that these programs have, the move to reduce single use plastics was driven to no small extent by the sad whale from blue planet 2. That drove individual actions but also put pressure on government.
Was the carbon footprint generated to make 5 minutes of film about some orcha’s swimming around worth it.
The carbon footprint to get those 5 minutes was probably less than the carbon footprint used to make the TV you watched it on - and that footage will be around many, many years after that TV has been thrown in the bin.
So sensibly, remove the sitting government as soon as possible, they are actively harming the UK environment with their legislation.
I agree entirely that the government harming the environment . But changing the government to the Green Party if that were possible will still make no difference to climate change and the environment in any meaningful way. The problem is too big for a single nation to make any difference short of China, India, Russia and the USA shutting down which isn’t going to happen
chrismac
Full Member
So sensibly, remove the sitting government as soon as possible, they are actively harming the UK environment with their legislation.I agree entirely that the government harming the environment . But changing the government to the Green Party if that were possible will still make no difference to climate change and the environment in any meaningful way. The problem is too big for a single nation to make any difference short of China, India, Russia and the USA shutting down which isn’t going to happen
Are you suggesting that we do nothing?
Wiping out the wildlife in a river because of sewage outflow or fertiliser usage is nothing to do with the Russians or Chinese.
OK, Orca’s eating seals off the Shetlands isn’t highlighting the destruction of the planet particularly
One of the 27s was found dead and a postmortem carried out revealed that he had died due to drowning caused by swallowing fishing gear.
Besides that, orcas are staggeringly intelligent creatures with strong social bonds, the more people know about them the more people will appreciate and value them, and recognise the indisputable responsibility that humans have towards other species and the environment.
The problem is too big for a single nation to make any difference short of China, India, Russia and the USA shutting down which isn’t going to happen
Therefore your whole point about worrying about the carbon footprint of a TV section is irrelevant.
Therefore your whole point about worrying about the carbon footprint of a TV section is irrelevant.
Therefore there is no point in Mr Attenborough banging on about it
Are you suggesting that we do nothing?
Personally yeah that pretty much sums up my position. The planet is fine, humans will disappear because we will make it uninhabitable for ourselves. I can’t change that so I might aswell enjoy my time on it whilst I’m here
Personally yeah that pretty much sums up my position. The planet is fine,
Well that closes the debate then. Why didn't you make your position clear at the very start? It would have saved a lot of time.
Therefore there is no point in Mr Attenborough banging on about it
I must've missed that bit.
Sir (not Mr.) Attenborough isn't the only one banging on about our precious planet, or in this instance our precious country, (the whole of it from the Shetland Isles to the tip of Cornwall), our youngsters are 'banging on about it'. They are the future and they need to get through to the many who think we can just carry on how we please.
As for what each and every one of us can do, well I haven't got the time to mention the thousands of things, but maybe joining a local 'green charity' eg The woodland trust, your local wildlife trust etc. planting a small apple tree, marching to save some greenbelt land, not mowing your garden, walking, cycling or taking public transport for a journey less than a mile. Looking at what one buys more carefully, buying fruit and veg in season. These things and many others are not hard.
We are not above nature, we are part of it and we need to look after it.
Personally yeah that pretty much sums up my position. The planet is fine, humans will disappear because we will make it uninhabitable for ourselves. I can’t change that so I might aswell enjoy my time on it whilst I’m here
Jesus!! Thankfully plenty of people do give af. We can do things that will have a massive impact to improve OUR environment. All is not lost - that's utterly ridiculous. An easy one, stopping private water companies pumping sh1t into our rivers. To do that, don't vote for MPs who support that.
Brilliant program, our country really is so incredibly beautiful.
Sir David is a living legend. At 96 years old, and he's still out there doing it. Incredible.