Springwatch is back (6 Viewers)

[King Edward]

The most depressing thing about Springwatch, aka 'The Chris and Kate Show', is that, despite having access to the skilled cameramen and kit of the BBC Natural History Unit, they fill at least 2/3 of the show with inane banter between the presenters. Maybe the target audience likes that kind of thing, I don't know, but far too much of the programme is full of it to the exclusion of more interesting content. They also jump about so often from subject to subject that a lot of time is taken up in repeating what they said earlier ("two minutes ago we saw this, and in another two minutes we'll be looking at this, but first let me tell you what's coming up later on")*.

Perhaps they could screen a half hour condensed version of the week's actual wildlife footage on Fridays.

 

[Hyrax]

He assumed you were interested and wanted to know more, therefore negating the need to reduce everything to a platitudinous or overtly-emotional soundbite, as if we needed to be told what/how to feel.

Very well put. Programmes like springwatch feel too much like a cheap sales pitch rather than a documentary. Attenborough was so enjoyable because you hardly noticed he was there, a lot of other presenters just get in the way.

 

[Monahawk]

A big improvement in the presenting style, it seemed to us - even hubby watched it all the way through - very rare! Looking forward to Sylvia Sheldon on adders tonight- superb! It's brilliant if they are going to involve more ' amateur' naturalists; that's where a lot of the knowledge and dedication is.

Your last paragraph hits the nail on the head. Over the last two or three years the amount of amateur footage shown on this programme has been brilliant in as much that I find these footages the best part of the programme at times. It's these little snippets from viewers and enthusiasts that really make this programme tick and not the style of the presenters.

Si.

 

[The sniper]

Very well put. Programmes like springwatch feel too much like a cheap sales pitch rather than a documentary. Attenborough was so enjoyable because you hardly noticed he was there, a lot of other presenters just get in the way.

Two completely different programmes and two completely different audiences.Attenborough is champions league while springwatch is division 2.Nothing wrong with either but think it's harsh to expect the same quality on SW as it's audience is different

 

[bluechaffinch]

Two completely different programmes and two completely different audiences.Attenborough is champions league while springwatch is division 2.Nothing wrong with either but think it's harsh to expect the same quality on SW as it's audience is different

I agree up to a point: they are different animals but need not be. All of Attenborough's programmes were primetime BBC slots and drew massive ratings, not just in the UK either. They also taught you stuff, proper, intelligent stuff with no fuss. And we must remember that Mr. A was the presenter - his works were the result of some pretty adept commissioning by the BBC. I find it frustrating that the same integrity and judgement cannot be applied to a SW-type programme - to blend the best of BBC wildlife programming and a popular 'family-lite' series without childishness is surely not beyond the wit of man?

I agree wholeheartedly with getting more 'amateur' naturalists to present - these sections show the best of a fine tradition of 'amateur' science.

 

[Hyrax]

Two completely different programmes and two completely different audiences.Attenborough is champions league while springwatch is division 2.Nothing wrong with either but think it's harsh to expect the same quality on SW as it's audience is different

That's a fair comment and I only express my subjective view as an obviously biased member of the Attenborough camp. However I would still contend that there is too much time spent selling nature to the spring watch audience and not enough left over to let them develop their own appreciation of it.

 

[NoSpringChicken]

Two completely different programmes and two completely different audiences.Attenborough is champions league while springwatch is division 2.Nothing wrong with either but think it's harsh to expect the same quality on SW as it's audience is different

I agree with this. It's not a case of Attenborough or Springwatch; the two can exist side by side. The Attenborough programmes cost a fortune and take huge amounts of time and effort to produce. They are sold over the world and receive endless repeats. Springwatch is 'cheap and cheerful', disposable television, designed to get families interested in nature so that they will go out and look for themselves. It seems to be very successful in this respect. I always know when Springwatch is on as the local reserves are full of families out enjoying themselves.

Regarding the 'padding', I imagine the problem is that it takes many hours of waiting by the cameramen to produce a couple of minutes of footage. They could fill the programme with endless shots of Blue Tits feeding their young in nest boxes but I don't know if it would hold people's attention for very long and I am sure it would receive criticism from the hardcore birders on this site.

Ron

 

[Euan Buchan]

I watched it last night and I have to say I miss the presence of Bill Oddie and Simon King. It would be great if they could return in some way. Great to hear that there will be some "amatur" naturalists on the show.

I agree

 

[Stoggler]

I wonder if they'll be able to pronounce Ynys-hir correctly by the end of the series!

 

[mickbe74]

I won't be watching again,it should be screened on childrens tv,eg : the presenter being amazed that beavers are building dams? i think if you asked most 7 year olds a fact about beavers,"they build dams" would be it,apart from the fact his presenting style is really annoying,it's generally really patronising.I'm not saying it shouldn't be on tv but why can't they put on a program for people who are not totally clueless,and not consentrate so much on tame beavers...rant over.

 

[The sniper]

Consentrate should be Spelt with a c lol

 

[Davethetrimdonian]

Spring watch v sir David

Sir David's stuff is years (literally) in the making whereas spring watch is much more spontaneous, I like them both, but would only buy sir David's stuff on DVD.

 

[The sniper]

Well I enjoyed it.Probably like many people they are amazed that such a great creature is back in the wild in the UK,albeit part of a re-introduction programme.
There is nothing wrong with getting excited over nature,some people have seen it all,others haven't.I have never seen a beaver in the wild,if I did I do not know what my reaction would be but I doubt it would be too different from the one shown by the presenter in question

 

[iveljay]

So far its the beavers, herons and adders that I remember from two programmes largely because of the fact I learnt a bit from two of them and because the shots of the sun setting behind the other appealed to me , probably not a bad start; - and for my two penny worth my preferred wildlife presenter was Peter Scott.

 

[NoSpringChicken]

I enjoyed the sequence of the Beaver gnawing through the tree trunk. I assumed it would fall over lumberjack style, so I was rather surprised when the pointed base suddenly plunged down vertically right where the Beaver had been a split second before. I can see why they sometimes get killed in the process. I imagine the crunching noises were recorded by Chris Watson.

I am also looking forward to seeing those young Redstarts fledging. Beautiful birds. The woman with the Adders was a real star too.

Ron

 

[iveljay]

Reminded me of one of the first trees I felled with an axe when I was 11 - scared the living daylights out of me when it did something very similar!
Springwatch usually gets better as they develop their stories each year and introduce new people and animals. At least we are not spending half a programme watching empty badger holes these days - some of the very early programmes in the first few series were quite rough in comparison with today.

 

[NoSpringChicken]

I have to admit my heart sank when they introduced the inevitable Badger sett in the first programme. Hopefully the Badgers will play a minor role in this series. Bring on those Little Owls and Red Kites!

Ron

 

[Monahawk]

I enjoyed seeing the little owls. The beaver sequence though is ruined by the irritating presenter. Who is this nerd? He is the type that is ripe for ridicule on impersonation shows. In fact I thought this guy was trying to impersonate someone himself, what with his animated movements and condescending style. Bring back Simon or Gordon quickly.

Si.

 

[NoSpringChicken]

The beaver sequence though is ruined by the irritating presenter. Who is this nerd? He is the type that is ripe for ridicule on impersonation shows. In fact I thought this guy was trying to impersonate someone himself, what with his animated movements and condescending style.

Charlie Hamilton James is Philippa Forrester's husband and is one of the country's top cameramen. He had a series called Halcyon River Diaries, which followed the Kingfishers, Water Voles and other wildlife on the river by their home. I thought that programme was excellent but I have to admit that he is much better behind the the lens than in front of it. His presenting style last night was way over the top and all the animated hand movements and peculiar facial expressions were extremely irritating. Judging from Halcyon River Diaries he is actually rather a placid and undemonstrative chap. I get the impression that he has been told to be a bit more lively. Hopefully, he will calm down and let the pictures tell the story.

Ron

 

[Stoggler]

Charlie Hamilton James is Philippa Forrester's husband and is one of the country's top cameramen. He had a series called Halcyon River Diaries, which followed the Kingfishers, Water Voles and other wildlife on the river by their home. I thought that programme was excellent but I have to admit that he is much better behind the the lens than in front of it. His presenting style last night was way over the top and all the animated hand movements and peculiar facial expressions were extremely irritating. Judging from Halcyon River Diaries he is actually rather a placid and undemonstrative chap. I get the impression that he has been told to be a bit more lively. Hopefully, he will calm down and let the pictures tell the story.

Ron

I liked him in Halcyon River Diaries, but then that is a less formal style of presenting than straight to camera on live TV. He does seem stilted and uncomfortable in front of camera - I agree, he's better behind the camera.

And lucky man being married to Philippa Forrester... Used to have a real crush on her when I was younger!! :-O