BBC science and natural history TV (1 Viewer)

[JTweedie]

The last episode of Natural World was in 2020.

There were only three episodes in each of 2021 and 2022 of Horizon. We're a long way from the 1960s and 1970s (before my time) when there'd be 30+ episodes a year.

There was a pandemic on, we know that.

But does this suggest the BBC has cut the budget back on natural history and science TV? Autumnwatch as we know is cancelled. Is all the money going in to blue chip series like Planet Earth? These series are visually gorgeous and we often see some fantastic things we've never seen before, particularly with animals that don't often get seen on TV such as insects.

But because the emphasis is on cinematography in these expensive series, I often think we're missing out on the deeper dives that Natural World was well known for.

 

[Farnboro John]

The last episode of Natural World was in 2020.

There were only three episodes in each of 2021 and 2022 of Horizon. We're a long way from the 1960s and 1970s (before my time) when there'd be 30+ episodes a year.

There was a pandemic on, we know that.

But does this suggest the BBC has cut the budget back on natural history and science TV? Autumnwatch as we know is cancelled. Is all the money going in to blue chip series like Planet Earth? These series are visually gorgeous and we often see some fantastic things we've never seen before, particularly with animals that don't often get seen on TV such as insects.

But because the emphasis is on cinematography in these expensive series, I often think we're missing out on the deeper dives that Natural World was well known for.

I agree there's a problem and I would agree with your mention of Horizon as a significant part of it. At the same time the BBC is putting on more and more game shows and reality TV until it's just a clone of the advert-fuelled chav channels.

There is no good news.

John

 

[Richard D]

Real term funding for the BBC has been cut by over 30% since 2010. Natural History, Arts programmes etc. are expensive to produce. Game shows and reality TV is cheap to produce and attracts large audiences...

 

[Farnboro John]

Real term funding for the BBC has been cut by over 30% since 2010. Natural History, Arts programmes etc. are expensive to produce. Game shows and reality TV is cheap to produce and attracts large audiences...

Public service broadcasting should be above mere ratings. And should be catering to the entire people, not just the gullible and prurient.

John

 

[Green Sandpiper]

Real term funding for the BBC has been cut by over 30% since 2010. Natural History, Arts programmes etc. are expensive to produce. Game shows and reality TV is cheap to produce and attracts large audiences...

True, but it is a sign that the BBC are failing to meet the principles of their charter. The argument against doing away with the license fee/ bringing adverts into the BBC, was that it would affect their ability to produce top rated programmes, with the 'Attenborough' marque events usually highlighted.

In my lifetime we've gone from the BBC giving us Life on Earth, I- Claudius and Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy to dirge like Michael Mcintyre's the Wheel.

 

[JTweedie]

If you look at many of the recent productions (in fact this even applies to Life on Earth too) is that they're co-productions with other networks. These other networks no doubt help with the financing and distribution (and sometimes they change the narrator too). But it underlines how expensive these series are.

But if you don't need it to look like a Hollywood blockbuster then you can ease back a bit and tell a better story. There was a series presented by Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall in which he went out and encountered local wildlife enthusiasts - the people studying (professionally or as amateurs) butterflies, birds and anything else in an area. I thought it was great. He was the presenter, but the content was factually rich and I felt at the end of each episode that I learned something new about the wildlife and how they're studied. It was like an extended series of those little segments in Springwatch where they showcase the work of people around the country, although in this programme it was focused in the English West Country.

Another excellent series was Earth Story from the late 90s. It was presented by the biologist Aubrey Manning who played the role of someone seeking to learn about how the planet works. Like Life on Earth, it had room to go into each topic in sufficient depth to give more than just a surface understanding of what the scientists were talking about it.

I remember in one scene he was holding a meteorite in his hand and he was told it was probably the oldest object on the planet. Rather than going "wow" like you see in today's programmes, he just sat quietly contemplating this idea. I've held rocks that were billions of years old. It becomes second nature and I barely gave their age a thought other than to give me information about when it formed. But only in quiet moments did I ever pause to really think about it and appreciate just how old those objects are. And I think that would be most people's reaction - there's no need for performative enthusiasm for the camera. Maybe for some people it does wow them, but I think most put this on for the show.

 

[davercox]

At least, apparently, we are going to get "Wild Isles" on the BBC. They're not yet saying exactly when, but "soon".
Let's hope.

 

[NoSpringChicken]

From the clips they showed when David Attenborough was on Winter Watch 'Wild Isles' promises to be a stunning series.

Ron

 

[Andy Lakin]

David Attenborough in particular must have made the BBC millions through overseas sales. I wonder how the BBC's finances have changed in recent years now that people aren't buying D.V.Ds in any numbers nowadays.

 

[JTweedie]

I think they make a lot of money by selling the programmes to other broadcasters.