Blue Planet 2 hasn’t yet really gripped me. I’m not sure why not. The filming is amazing. The creatures are amazing. It must be me.
Yesterday’s programme was fascinating as it revealed lots of species that have never been filmed before and which therefore were new to almost everyone. There were quite a lot of fish with sharp teeth.
The music in nature programmes rarely bothers me; I hardly ever notice it and wonder why people are making such a fuss about it, but yesterday I found it very intrusive. In fact, throughout the programme, I was wondering how much of what I was hearing was real, how much was a musical accompaniment and how much was made up sound effects.
And in the abyssal deep I was out of my depth. How big or small were the species I was seeing? Is that the size of a Wren or a Canada Goose?
But I’ll be watching again next week – it would feel wrong not to let the tones of Sir David wash over one on a Sunday evening.
[registration_form]
Is very good like programs like that I have learned a lot what goes on under the deep seas around the planet sea temps going up and sir David makes it intresting
It was the perfect HD photography that put me off. Strange feeling. A bit set up, but obviously not. Maybe a generation gap thing. For me, at least!
I agree that the music/sound-track is an irritation. Quite a lot of the time there is an implication that we are actually hearing the action that we are watching when we clearly are not. For me this was especially ludicrous when the school of predatory fish (silvery and swimming in a vertical orientation – I don’t recall their name) swam in to the accompaniment of a sort of tinkling music as if a set of wind-chimes had swum into shot. This is a shame as the things we are seeing on screen are fascinating and stunningly beautiful.